Evidence of intoxication-induced amnesia not relevant to defense of being in U.S. illegally after prior deportation

EVIDENCE United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, No. 07-2028, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Mar. 21, 2008)(New Mexico). Appeal of conviction of being “found in” United States illegally after prior deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). HELD: District court’s decision to exclude evidence of defendant’s intoxication-induced amnesia was correct because proffered evidence was not relevant to any fact at issue in defendant’s defense, especially defense attacking mens rea (mental element) of the charged offense. Mens rea required to secure a conviction for being unlawfully “found in” United States is limited and no intent to break law, whether characterized as “specific intent” or “general criminal intent,” must be proved. Defendant’s proffered proof of intoxication and inability to remember how he came to United States did “not make it any more or less likely that he was (innocently) carried across the border against his will or (culpably) intended the physical actions that transported him to the United States. Had defendant’s proffered evidence included any evidence suggesting he was taken across border against his will, it would have been properly admissible. However, inviting jury to guess about defendant’s mode of arrival in United States based on absence of proof (i.e., “complete vacuum in his memory”) is another, and the district court properly ruled it out of bounds. Relevant evidence does not include the suggestion of speculative possibilities.” Read the opinion here.