Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01845/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Toby Bolzer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1845

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Toby Bolzer, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 16, 2003

Filed: May 20, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Toby Bolzer was convicted of second-degree murder and use of a firearm

during the commission of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153

and 924(c). He was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment on the murder count, 120

months consecutively on the firearm count, three years supervised release, restitution

of $4,326.44 and special assessments of $200. He argues on appeal that the district

court erred in: 1) denying his motion for acquittal based on the alleged failure of the

government to meet its burden with respect to all elements of second-degree murder;

2) giving an erroneous jury instruction on malice aforethought; 3) failing to grant a

mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct; 4) refusing to allow extrinsic proof of a

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-2-

prior inconsistent statement by a government witness; and 5) giving an erroneous jury

instruction regarding his allegedly false exculpatory statements. We affirm.

I.

At the time of her death, Santana Standing Bear lived in a house on the Pine

Ridge Indian Reservation with Holly Quinn, Quinn's four year-old daughter, Tyra,

and the defendant, Toby Bolzer. Quinn and Santana, both female, were in a romantic

relationship and had begun living together sometime in 2000. Bolzer moved in

during the fall of 2001. He knew Quinn from when they worked together for the

Oglala Sioux Tribal Police and had romantic feelings toward her. Quinn told Bolzer

that she was not interested in a romantic relationship with him, but nonetheless

allowed him to live in her home because Bolzer was unemployed and had previously

helped her. 

The government presented evidence that the relationship between Santana and

Bolzer was friendly at first but quickly deteriorated. Quinn testified that Bolzer and

Santana were jealous people and that problems developed between the two once

Bolzer learned the romantic nature of Santana's relationship with Quinn. She said

Bolzer and Santana rarely spoke to each other and often complained about one

another to Quinn. On February 16, 2002, Quinn told Bolzer that "if he couldn't

handle the situation with [Quinn and Santana] being together, then he could leave."

According to Quinn, Bolzer responded by yelling, "I hate her, I hate her." Neither he

nor Santana left the household. 

Several witnesses provided testimony about Santana's mental and emotional

problems. There was testimony that Santana had been the victim of an attempted

rape, had been emotionally and physically abused by her mother, had suffered sexual

abuse by her relatives, and had threatened or attempted to harm herself or commit

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-3-

suicide on several occasions. She spent a significant amount of time in treatment

centers attempting to deal with these problems.

Santana's death occurred on the night of February 20, 2002. With the exception

of the few moments immediately preceding her death, the events of that night are

undisputed. The four members of the household spent the early evening hours

watching a movie with Quinn's eight year-old niece, Clara Poor Bear. When the

movie ended, Bolzer offered to drive Clara home. Santana and Quinn began to argue

while he was gone, and Quinn called Santana a "psycho." This comment caused

Santana to become very upset. She took Quinn's gun, which Quinn possessed in

connection with her employment by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Police, and refused to

relinquish it. Quinn continued arguing with Santana and told her at one point, "This

is it. This is fucking it," which Quinn later explained meant that she considered their

relationship to be over. Santana eventually moved from the kitchen, where the

argument had started, to her bedroom. She kept the gun with her. 

Bolzer returned when the two women were still in the kitchen arguing and

entered the house as Santana was walking toward her bedroom. Bolzer took Tyra into

the kitchen and attempted to comfort her while Quinn followed Santana to her

bedroom. Quinn heard Santana on the phone with a friend and took a step into the

bedroom. Santana pointed the weapon at Quinn and told her, "Don't come any

closer." Quinn backed out of the room and watched as Santana turned the gun and

pointed it at her own chest. Quinn returned to the kitchen for ten seconds, then

walked back to Santana's bedroom. Santana was still holding the weapon to her chest

and was trying to call her mother. 

Quinn returned to the kitchen again. She helped Bolzer get Tyra ready so that

Bolzer could take Tyra out of the house. After Bolzer and Tyra left the house, Quinn

put on her bullet-proof police vest and returned a third time to Santana's bedroom.

She heard Santana on the phone to Carla Jean Standing Bear ("C.J."), saying, "C.J.,

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-4-

I don't know what to do. I am going to kill myself." Quinn panicked, left the police

vest in her bedroom, and ran out of the house to Bolzer's truck, where Bolzer and

Tyra were sitting. Quinn told Bolzer, "She's going to do it, she's going to do it." She

then asked Bolzer, "Shall I go in, or are you going to go in?" He responded, "I will."

As Bolzer proceeded toward the house, Quinn told him her vest was in her

bedroom and that he should also use her mace. After Bolzer entered the house, Quinn

sat in the pickup for one or two minutes and then drove off with Tyra to her cousin's

home. Quinn hoped to bring her cousin back to Quinn's house because she thought

her cousin could calm Santana down. 

The events of the next few moments are disputed. Bolzer testified that he

entered the house, found Quinn's mace, and put on Quinn's police vest. He said that

Santana's door was locked when he reached it but that he could hear her crying and

talking on the phone. He sprayed mace under the door, then went to the kitchen to

find a knife that he could use to pry the door open. He found a knife, opened the

door, took a step into the room and told her, "Give me the gun; give me the gun." He

testified that he approached her and sprayed mace at her, and she turned away. He

testified that he took another step and reached down for the gun when a shot was

fired–either accidentally or because Santana intentionally pulled the trigger–into

Santana's chest.

The government presented evidence that the shooting was neither accidental

nor a suicide. The government's primary evidence was Bolzer's own confession,

which he made to FBI agents on March 7, 2002, approximately two weeks after

Santana's death. FBI Special Agent Joe Weir testified that he and two other agents

had Bolzer reenact the events surrounding Santana's death, and that the reenactment

led to Bolzer admitting to "grabbing the gun, pulling it back, raising it up, and then

pulling the trigger one round" into Santana's chest. Weir testified that Bolzer

admitted he shot Santana because the events of the night presented an opportunity to

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
1

Bolzer also argues that Davis is applicable for its proposition that "[w]here the

government's evidence is equally strong to infer innocence as to infer guilt, the

verdict must be one of not guilty and the court has a duty to direct an acquittal." 103

F.3d at 667. Bolzer acknowledges that subsequent cases, including United States v.

Butler, 238 F.3d 1001, 1004 (8th Cir. 2001), have suggested that Davis conflicts with

United States v. Baker, 98 F.3d 330, 338 (8th Cir. 1996) ("If the evidence rationally

-5-

"get her out of the way." Weir also testified that Bolzer acknowledged having lied

to law enforcement by portraying the incident as a suicide. 

The government also relied on testimony from Carla Standing Bear, who said

that she was on the telephone with Santana when Bolzer entered the bedroom on the

night of the shooting. Carla Standing Bear testified that she heard Bolzer say,

"Santana, you bitch." She testified that Santana told her Toby had a gun and that she

needed help. 

II.

Bolzer challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for

second-degree murder. He argues that even if the jury concluded he shot Santana, the

evidence surrounding the shooting–particularly the evidence of Santana's emotional

instability–is uncontradicted and shows the existence of extenuating circumstances.

These extenuating circumstances, he argues, negate any finding of malice

aforethought, which is a necessary element of second-degree murder. Instead, he

asserts that the facts support only a finding of voluntary manslaughter. The district

court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal both at the end of the government's

case and at the close of the trial.

"We review the denial of a motion for acquittal by viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict, giving the government the benefit of all

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence." United States v. Davis, 103

F.3d 660, 667 (8th Cir. 1996).1

 We will uphold the conviction against a challenge to

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
supports two conflicting hypotheses, the reviewing court will not disturb the

conviction."), but argues that we should follow Davis. We believe that Davis and

Baker are reconcilable. See United States v. Flores, 362 F.3d 1030, 1035 n.1 (8th Cir.

2004) (observing that Davis referred only to the government's evidence, while Baker

referred to all the evidence, including that presented by the defense). In any event,

we are not persuaded that the government's evidence in this case is equally strong to

infer innocence as to infer guilt. 

-6-

the sufficiency of the evidence unless "a reasonable fact-finder must have entertained

a reasonable doubt about the government's proof of one of the offense's essential

elements." United States v. Teitloff, 55 F.3d 391, 393 (8th Cir. 1995). 

Bolzer rests his argument on DeMarrias v. United States, 453 F.2d 211 (8th

Cir. 1972), in which the appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder

on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of malice aforethought. The

appellant in DeMarrias had admitted in conversations with third-parties to having

killed the victim but made no further comment about his subjective motivation at the

time of the homicide. Id. at 214. The three statements he made were: 1) "Keep still

or I will hit you, too" (made to another occupant of the home where the incident

occurred); 2) "I hope Jerry isn't dead. If he is, I have to go back to Sandstone,

Minnesota, prison"; and 3) "I killed my brother. I killed my brother." Id. The

government argued that evidence of collateral circumstances tended to prove malice,

including evidence that the victim had been found lying in a bed and that the

appellant had assaulted two other persons during the night of the homicide and had

threatened a third. We held that neither the appellant's statements nor this collateral

evidence supported an inference of malice because the government failed to establish

the time of the homicide and therefore failed to connect the circumstantial evidence

to the time of the homicide. Id. We set the conviction aside and remanded with

instructions to resentence the appellant on a voluntary manslaughter charge. Id. at

215.

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-7-

Unlike the evidence in DeMarrias, Bolzer's confession and the government's

other evidence provides sufficient insight into his state of mind at the time of the

shooting to permit the jury to infer that he acted with malice aforethought. In

particular, Agent Weir testified that Bolzer admitted to having built up frustrations

with Santana and to seeing the events of the night of February 20 as an opportunity

to "get her out of the way." Moreover, the jury heard Carla Standing Bear testify that

she heard Bolzer call Santana a "bitch" immediately before the shooting, and that

Santana said Bolzer had a gun and pleaded for help. A reasonable juror, relying on

this evidence alone, could reasonably have concluded that Bolzer intended at the time

of the killing "willfully to take the a life of a human being or . . . willfully to act in

callous and wanton disregard of the consequence of human life." United States v.

Johnson, 879 F.2d 331, 334 (8th Cir. 1989). 

The evidence of Santana's emotional problems on the night of the shooting

does not convince us otherwise. It is certainly possible that her problems affected

Bolzer to such an extent that he did not act with malice aforethought, but reaching

this conclusion would require us to give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences

that may be drawn from the evidence. This we clearly cannot do. See Teitloff, 55

F.3d at 393. Instead, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that Bolzer saw her instability

as an opportunity to get rid of her and therefore possessed the necessary malice

aforethought. The jury apparently concluded as much, and we will not disturb their

verdict. 

III.

Contrary to Bolzer's assertion, we also conclude that the district court did not

commit plain error in its jury instruction on malice aforethought. Bolzer did not

object below to the malice instruction, nor did he request a voluntary manslaughter

instruction, but now argues that the instruction erroneously informed the jury that it

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
2

The government appears to argue that our review should be for plain error

because Bolzer failed to object at the time the alleged misconduct occurred. We are

unpersuaded. Bolzer could not possibly have known upon hearing the government's

opening statement, or upon hearing the early parts of the government's case, that the

government would ultimately fail to substantiate its claims. Because Bolzer moved

for mistrial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct at the end of the government's

case, the district court had an adequate opportunity to consider his motion, and we

will review the denial of that motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Novak, 918 F.2d 107, 109-10 (10th Cir. 1990) (defendant's motion for mistrial at the

end of the government's case was sufficient to preserve claim of prosecutorial

-8-

needed only to find that Bolzer acted intentionally in order to find that he acted with

malice. The district court's instruction on malice aforethought followed almost

verbatim the language of a malice instruction that we described as "proper" in

Johnson, 879 F.2d at 334, and therefore is not plainly erroneous. 

IV.

Bolzer next argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his

motion for a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The government's

opening statement twice suggested that Bolzer had destroyed evidence immediately

after the shooting. The government made several other suggestions during the trial

that evidence was destroyed, including the presentation of testimony that Bolzer had

attended a law enforcement training course where lessons were given on how easy it

is to destroy evidence. Bolzer contends that no affirmative evidence was ever

presented that he had actually destroyed any evidence at the scene, and therefore the

opening statement and other allusions to the destruction of evidence constituted

misconduct. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Bolzer's motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Warfield, 97 F.3d 1014, 1028 (8th

Cir. 1996) (applying abuse of discretion review).2

 The reference to destruction of

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
misconduct for appeal). 

-9-

evidence in the government's opening statement was a permissible inference that

could be drawn from the evidence the government ultimately produced in the case.

See United States v. Wilkinson, 754 F.2d 1427, 1435 (2d Cir. 1985) (affirming

district court's denial of new trial motion based on prosecutorial misconduct where

the statements objected to "did not go beyond inferences that might normally be

drawn from the evidence"); see also United States v. Perry, 925 F.2d 1077, 1081 (8th

Cir. 1991) (holding that prosecutor's opening statement was not improper where it

referred to a witness who ultimately did not testify and thereby forced the jury to draw

an inference from circumstantial evidence). It is undisputed, for example, that after

the shot was fired Bolzer moved the gun from Santana's bedroom to the kitchen and

unloaded it. Nonetheless, his fingerprints were not found on the gun. In light of his

subsequent confession, the government certainly could argue the inference that he

wiped down the weapon in an effort to conceal his guilt. Likewise, the government

presented testimony that the gun was "[w]ithin a couple inches" from Santana's chest

at the time of the shooting, and that the bullet hit most of her vital organs, including

the heart, lung, stomach, and diaphragm. Nonetheless, there was no evidence of

"blowback"–described by a government witness as fragments of the victim's skin or

blood that may end up on a firearm–found on the gun. Again, a permissible inference

is that Bolzer destroyed evidence of blowback by wiping down the gun. Bolzer's

counsel was free to–and did–argue the weakness of such an inference. See Perry, 925

F.2d at 1081 (observing that the defendant was free to cross-examine witnesses and

put on his own evidence to show the weakness of the inferences urged by the

prosecutor). 

V.

Bolzer next argues that the district court erred under Rule 613(b) of the Federal

Rules of Evidence in excluding evidence of an alleged prior inconsistent statement

by FBI Agent Weir. Weir testified on direct examination that he transferred from the

FBI office in Pierre, South Dakota, to the office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota,

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
3

Bolzer cites a Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239, 244

(5th Cir. 1981), for the proposition that our review is less deferential when the Sixth

Amendment is implicated. We do not read Davis as having any relevance to the

standard of review; instead, Davis merely recognizes that the Federal Rules of

Evidence do not limit a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.

Id. 

-10-

because his "wife is from Des Moines originally and she wanted to be closer to

shopping." Bolzer contends that the true reason for Weir's transfer was because of

his problematic relationship with a federal judge there, which culminated with Weir

using profanity to describe the judge during a conversation with a court employee.

On cross-examination, Weir admitted that there had been an inquiry into his conduct

but denied having used profanity. Bolzer later attempted to have the court employee,

Kathy Hammond, testify for the purpose of impeaching Weir, but the district court

refused to allow it under either Rule 608 or Rule 613(b). Bolzer was allowed to

present Hammond's testimony in an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury and

now appeals the district court's exclusion of this evidence. He limits his appeal to

admissibility under Rule 613(b). 

We review the district court's evidentiary rulings under Rule 613(b) for an

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 423 (8th Cir. 1996).3

Under Rule 613(b), "[a] party may introduce extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior

inconsistent statements if the witness is given a chance to explain the inconsistency,

the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to question the witness about the

inconsistency, and the inconsistent statements are material to the substantive issues

at trial." United States v. Miller, 91 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1996). 

The government attempts to justify the exclusion of Hammond's impeachment

testimony by citing several cases dealing with the exclusion of evidence under Rule

608(b). That rule, in relevant part, states: "Specific instances of the conduct of a

witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' character for

truthfulness. . . may not be proved by extrinsic evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). The

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-11-

government's reliance on this rule is misplaced. Rule 608 and Rule 613 are

independent bases for the admission of evidence and are governed by different

principles. Rule 608(b) applies when a party attempts to introduce evidence of prior

conduct of a witness that standing alone tends to attack or support the witness's

general character for truthfulness. See, e.g., United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 46

(2d Cir. 1979) ("[Rule 608(b)] was intended to regulate only the use of specific

instances of conduct to prove that the witness is a 'bad person' or is a generally

untruthful person who should not be believed."). In this sense, Bolzer clearly could

not introduce the court employee's testimony for the purpose of establishing that Weir

is generally a dishonest person or that he has a character for untruthfulness. By

contrast, Rule 613(b) addresses situations where a witness makes two irreconcilable

statements, one at trial and one previously. See United States v. Winchenbach, 197

F.3d 548, 558 (1st Cir. 1999) ("In short, comparison and contradiction are the

hallmarks of Rule 613(b)."). A party may introduce evidence of the prior inconsistent

statement under this rule for the purpose of calling the witness's credibility into

question, see id.; however, the subject of the prior inconsistent statement must be

material. Miller, 91 F.3d at 1163; Roulette, 75 F.3d at 423.

The materiality requirement gives rise to Bolzer's own apparent confusion

about the difference between Rule 608 and Rule 613(b). Bolzer insists that his appeal

is based on Rule 613(b); however, when pressed to explain the materiality of the

court employee's testimony, he argues that it is material because it would call Weir's

credibility into question by refuting Weir's claim of always acting courteously and

professionally. This appears to us as an attack on Weir's general character, which is

the focus of Rule 608. Moreover, even if Weir's credibility could constitute a

material issue for purposes of Rule 613(b), the Rule 613(b) test is nonetheless not

satisfied in this instance because Weir's credibility was not the subject of the prior

inconsistent statement. The relevant issue under Rule 613(b) is not whether there is

some material issue that would be affected in some way by the admission of the prior

inconsistent testimony, but rather whether the precise subject of the prior inconsistent

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-12-

testimony is material. See Roulette, 75 F.3d at 423 ("A prior inconsistent statement

contains collateral matter and is therefore inadmissible if the facts referred to in the

statement could not be shown in evidence for any purpose independent of the

contradiction."). Weir's alleged comment about the federal judge to the court

employee in Pierre, however ill-advised and inappropriate, had no substantive

connection whatsoever to Bolzer's second-degree murder trial. Thus, any tendency

of that prior statement to call Weir's credibility into question is irrelevant for Rule

613(b) purposes. 

For these reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

admit the impeachment testimony proffered by Bolzer. See United States v. Grooms,

978 F.2d 425, 428-29 (8th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse its discretion in

excluding evidence that abuse victims' mother told a friend she believed the victims'

father had coached their testimony where the substance of the statement was not

material). 

VI.

Bolzer's final argument is that the district court abused its discretion by giving

an improper jury instruction regarding Bolzer's consciousness of guilt. See United

States v. Lalley, 257 F.3d 751, 755 (reviewing jury instructions for abuse of

discretion). The district court instructed:

When a defendant voluntarily and intentionally offers an explanation or

makes some statement tending to show his innocence, and this

explanation or statement is later shown . . . to be false, the jury may

consider whether the circumstantial evidence points to a consciousness

of guilt. Ordinarily, it is reasonable to infer that an innocent person does

not usually find it necessary to invent or fabricate an explanation or

statement tending to establish his innocence. 

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-13-

Whether or not evidence as to defendant's voluntary explanation or

statement points to a consciousness of guilt and the significance to be

attached to any such evidence, are matters exclusively within the

province of the jury. 

Bolzer argues that the instruction failed to make clear that it applied only to his

pretrial statements; thus, it allowed the jury to use his trial testimony when evaluating

consciousness of guilt. He further argues that the instruction implied that his pretrial

statements were false when truth or falsity was an issue the jury was required to

decide before using the statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

We conclude that any error in the district court's failure to distinguish between

pretrial statements and trial testimony is harmless. See United States v. Wright, 246

F.3d 1123, 1128 (8th Cir. 2001) (reversal is warranted for improper jury instructions

only where "the error affected the defendant's substantial rights"). We share Bolzer's

concern with the district court's failure to clarify that the instruction applied only to

his pretrial statements. See United States v. Clark, 45 F.3d 1247, 1251 (8th Cir.

1995) ("The false exculpatory statement instruction is aimed at pretrial fabrications,

on the theory that the innocent do not fabricate to avoid being accused of crime. That

theory does not apply to a defendant's trial testimony.") (internal citation omitted).

Nonetheless, Bolzer admits that the statement of innocence he made to an investigator

on the night of Santana's death–which was one of the voluntary and intentional

pretrial statements referred to in the jury instruction–was "an almost exact version of

events which Bolzer eventually testified to at trial." Thus, the jury could not have

found Bolzer's trial testimony to be false without also concluding that this pretrial

statement was false. If the jury actually did, as Bolzer fears, use the disbelieved trial

testimony as evidence of consciousness of guilt, then surely it used or would have

used the disbelieved pretrial statement for the same purpose. 

Similarly, even if one part of the jury instruction implied that Bolzer's

statements were false, the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving that

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116 
-14-

instruction. Immediately after giving the instruction to which Bolzer complains, the

court instructed: "If you find that Santana Standing Bear intentionally took her own

life, or that either Santana Standing Bear or Toby Bolzer accidentally caused the gun

to discharge, then you must find the defendant not guilty on both counts of the

indictment." This instruction informed the jury that it needed to determine the

veracity of Bolzer's claim that the gun went off accidentally or by Santana's own

actions. Furthermore, the court later stated: "Nothing I have said or done is intended

to suggest what your verdict should be. That is entirely for you to decide." Again,

this instruction illustrated to the jury that it must reach a verdict on its own and that

any suggestions of guilt or innocence contained in the instructions were inadvertent.

See, e.g., United States v. Lalley, 257 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that district

court did not abuse its discretion in giving jury instructions that, "taken together. . .

fairly and adequately conveyed the issues to the jury"). 

VII.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm Bolzer's convictions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1845 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769116