Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02546/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02546-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Broderick Birts
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2546

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Broderick Birts, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In a superseding indictment, the government charged Broderick Birts with three

counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and distribution of cocaine base in violation of § 841(a)(2). At trial, the

Government proceeded on the theory that Birts possessed the cocaine with intent to

distribute it. Birts objected to a jury instruction stating the government only had to

prove Birts possessed with intent to distribute, rather than both possessed with intent

to distribute and distributed the drug. The Government responded that charging

protocols required the Government to charge both crimes, but allowed the

Appellate Case: 05-2546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022515
*

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

-2-

Government to prove either one. The district court*

 agreed and overruled Birts’s

objection, finding an instruction on distribution would confuse the jury. To satisfy

Birts’s concerns, the court offered to instruct the jury that the government was not

proceeding on the theory of distribution. Birts agreed the instruction would “cure

[his] problem.” The court amended the jury instructions to state the Government was

proceeding on the theory of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, not on

the theory of distribution. The court thus instructed the jury that the elements of the

offense were that Birts possessed cocaine base, he knew he was possessing or

intended to possess it, and he intended to distribute some or all of the cocaine base to

another person. The jury convicted Birts on all three counts, and the district court

sentenced Birts to 120 months in prison. 

On appeal, Birts contends the district court committed error in deleting

distribution from the instructions and preventing Birts from arguing the government

had failed to prove the elements of the distribution charge. We disagree. The district

court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury. United States v. Urkevich,

408 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005). When a statute like § 841(a) “‘is worded in the

disjunctive . . . , federal pleading requires that an indictment charge in the conjunctive

to inform the accused fully of the charges.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Klein, 850

F.2d 404, 406 (8th Cir. 1988)). District courts may instruct the jury in the disjunctive

form used in the statute because “‘[p]roof of any one of the violations charged

conjunctively in the indictment will sustain a conviction.’” Id. (quoting Klein, 850

F.2d at 406). Here, the district court simply omitted the distribution language from

the model jury instruction in response to Birts’s concern. Jury instructions

specifically instructing on only one of the theories charged in the indictment do not

amend the indictment, alter the Government’s burden of proof, or otherwise prejudice

the defendant. United States v. Pate, 932 F.2d 736, 737 n.2 (8th Cir. 1991). Further,

Appellate Case: 05-2546 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022515
-3-

the district court properly prohibited Birts from arguing the Government had charged

distribution but failed to prove it, because the Government was not required to prove

distribution under the superseding indictment. Evidence of distribution was admitted

only to show Birts’s intent to distribute. 

We thus affirm Birts’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2546 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022515