UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando LOPEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that to prove unlawful possession under section 841, the defendant must have knowl- edge that he possessed a controlled substance
• stating that “‘a defendant who has knowledge that he possesses a controlled substance may have the state of mind necessary for conviction even if he does not know which controlled substance he possesses’”
• contrasting 1974 date of obtaining evidence and current proceedings in the 1980's
• defendant was properly convicted of possession with intent to distribute heroin even though he claimed that he thought he was possessing marijuana
• “The fact that the first [conviction] involved marihuana while the second involved heroin does not bar admission, when both arrests were for possession with intent to distribute.... [citation omitted]”
• Statements made in a 1974 arrest by federal officers were admissible in a 1982 federal trial because the agents in 1974 did not have the later 1982 proceedings in their “zone of primary interest.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).