holding that constitutional error of failing to instruct jury concerning specific intent for attempted reentry was harmless because “the government offered undisputed testimony ... that demonstrated [the alien’s] conscious desire to enter the United States without first obtaining express consent.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that constitutional error of failing to instruct jury concerning specific intent for attempted reentry was harmless because “the government offered undisputed testimony ... that demonstrated [the alien’s] conscious desire to enter the United States without first obtaining express consent.”
- explaining that if attempted illegal reentry were a general intent crime, a previ- ously deported alien who went to the border to pick up forms to apply for reentry could be convicted of attempting to reen- ter, regardless of his or her intent to comply with the law
- finding that the court’s erroneous omis- sion of the intent element from the jury instructions was harmless because overwhelming evidence supported a finding of intent — even though the defendant claimed he was asleep, and could not have had the requisite intent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Because I agree with the persuasive reasoning of the majority opinion in United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 192 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.1999), which I now adopt, I concur in the result.