Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04688/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04688-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricco Lamont McKoy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICCO LAMONT MCKOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00168-H)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: May 8, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Keating Wiles, CHESHIRE, PARKER, SCHNEIDER, BRYAN & VITALE,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding,

United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker,

Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4688 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 7
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ricco Lamont McKoy appeals his jury convictions for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), possession of a firearm and ammunition

by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924

(West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). McKoy contends the district court

plainly erred in its preliminary instructions to the jury regarding

the Government’s burden of proof in a criminal trial. While

conceding the district court gave an accurate description of the

reasonable doubt standard during its closing instructions to the

jury, McKoy claims this failed to negate the prejudicial effect of

the original instructions, which “obliged the jury to discount the

weight of the Government’s burden.” Because there is no reasonable

likelihood the jury understood the district court’s instructions to

allow for conviction based on a lesser standard of proof, we

affirm.

McKoy raised no objection to the district court’s

instructions regarding reasonable doubt; accordingly, his claim is

reviewed for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Four conditions must be met

before this court will notice plain error: (1) there must be error;

(2) it must be plain under current law; (3) it must affect

Appeal: 07-4688 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 7
- 3 -

substantial rights, typically meaning the defendant is prejudiced

by the error in that it affected the outcome of the proceedings;

and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 732-37.

Due process requires that every element of a crime be

proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re

Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). A reasonable doubt instruction

that decreases the Government’s burden of proof is constitutionally

deficient and qualifies as structural error that requires reversal

of the conviction. See Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 280-82

(1993). While the district court must instruct the jury as to the

application of the reasonable doubt standard in a criminal case,

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320 n.14 (1979), this court has

joined “in the general condemnation of trial court attempts to

define reasonable doubt in their jury instructions.” United States

v. Moss, 756 F.2d 329, 333 (4th Cir. 1985); see also United States

v. Reives, 15 F.3d 42, 46 (4th Cir. 1994). 

An attempt by the trial court to define reasonable doubt

will not require automatic reversal of a conviction; however, “at

some point a reasonable doubt definition may be so incomprehensible

or potentially prejudicial to require reversal.” Moss, 756 F.2d at

333. Accordingly, the reviewing court must determine “whether

there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the

instructions to allow conviction based on proof insufficient to

Appeal: 07-4688 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/08/2008 Pg: 3 of 7
- 4 -

meet the [constitutional] standard.” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S.

1, 6 (1994); see also United States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 298

(4th Cir. 1998). A conviction will not be reversed as long as “the

instructions, taken as a whole, adequately state the controlling

law.” United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 492 (4th Cir. 2003)

(internal quotation and citation omitted).

During its preliminary instructions to the jury, the

district court stated:

[T]he Government must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt. I’ll give you further instructions

on this point later, but bear in mind that in this

respect in a criminal case the burden of proof of beyond

a reasonable doubt is a slightly higher standard of proof

than that required in a civil lawsuit, where the burden

of proof is the preponderance of the evidence or the

greater weight of the evidence.

At the close of evidence, the district court provided its final

instructions to the jury, stating:

[W]hile the Government’s burden is a strict or heavy

burden, it is not necessary that the defendant’s guilt be

proved beyond all possible doubt. It is only required

that the Government’s proof exclude any reasonable doubt

concerning a defendant’s guilt. A reasonable doubt is a

real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after

careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence

in a case.

We agree McKoy is correct that the district court’s

preliminary instruction describing the reasonable doubt standard

was inaccurate. By describing the level of proof required for a

criminal conviction as only “slightly higher” than the

preponderance of the evidence standard used in civil cases, the

Appeal: 07-4688 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/08/2008 Pg: 4 of 7
- 5 -

district court failed to properly distinguish between these two

standards. While the civil standard of proof shares risk equally

between parties, the “unique” reasonable doubt standard reflects

our society’s concern that the risk of error to the defendant must

be minimized even if some who are guilty may go free as a result.

See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427-28 (1979). However, the

district court’s instructions, which seemingly equated the

reasonable doubt standard with the intermediate “clear and

convincing” standard used in some civil settings, see California ex

rel. Cooper v. Mitchell Bros.’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U.S. 90, 93

n.6 (1981), failed to accurately convey to the jury the heavy

standard of proof required for conviction in a criminal case.

Nevertheless, this error did not occur during the

district court’s final instructions to the jury; rather, the

misstatement was part of the court’s opening instructions in the

case. In its preliminary statements, the district court noted that

the jurors would be provided with “further instructions” on the

meaning of reasonable doubt at the close of the case. In its final

charge to the jury, the court instructed the jury on “the rules of

law that you must follow and apply in deciding this case,” adding

that the jurors must “follow the law as I explain it you . . . and

you must follow all of my instructions as a whole.” The court also

provided the jury with a written copy of its instructions, which

included an accurate description of the reasonable doubt standard,

Appeal: 07-4688 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/08/2008 Pg: 5 of 7
- 6 -

and noted that the written instructions should be used “for any

reference you may later need to make.” Accordingly, we find the

jury was aware of the fact that the final written instructions

would control their deliberations. 

As McKoy concedes, the district court’s final

instructions to the jury on the reasonable doubt standard were

“unobjectionable.” Final instructions to the jury may serve to

cure errors in previous directives provided by the trial court.

See United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550, 561 (4th Cir. 2006)

(citing United States v. Tran Trong Cuong, 18 F.3d 1132, 1138 (4th

Cir. 1994)), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2276 (2007). Furthermore,

the absence of error in the final charge to the jury is highly

relevant in determining whether a jury was misled by an earlier

misstatement. See United States v. Ruiz, 462 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th

Cir. 2006); United States v. Ciak, 102 F.3d 38, 46 (2d Cir. 1996);

United States v. Romero, 32 F.3d 641, 652 (1st Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, the district court’s instructions, taken as a whole,

served to adequately define the concept of reasonable doubt. See

Wills, 346 F.3d at 492. While the district court erred in its

earlier directives, McKoy’s substantial rights were unaffected, as

there is no reasonable likelihood the jury understood the

instructions to allow for a conviction based on a lesser standard

of proof. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734-35. Therefore, we conclude

Appeal: 07-4688 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/08/2008 Pg: 6 of 7
- 7 -

the district court’s preliminary instructions to the jury did not

constitute plain error.

Accordingly, we affirm McKoy’s convictions. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4688 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/08/2008 Pg: 7 of 7