N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HARLES B UR

NS, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-10041

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-00132-C RB -1
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 14, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , W . FLETC HER , a nd LINN, ** C irc uit Judge s. C ha rle s B urns a

p pe a l s his jury

c o nvic tion for posse ssion of a fire arm at a pla c e he kne w , or ha d re a s ona ble c a use to be lie ve , wa s a

sc hool z o ne , in viola

tion 

# FIL ED JAN 14 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble R ic ha rd Linn, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Fe de ra l C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.of 18 U.S.C . § 922(q)(2)(A). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we
re ve rse . 18 U.S.C . § 922(q)(2)(A) prohibits the posse ssion of a

fire arm “ at a pla c e that the individual knows, or ha s re a s ona ble c a use to be lie ve , is a

sc hool z one .” 18 U.S.C . §§ 921(a )(25) a

nd (26) de fine a

sc hool z one a s a

ny are a “ within a dista nc e of 1,000 fe e t from

the grounds of a

public , pa

roc h i a l or priva

te sc h ool,” and a
sc hool a s tha

t whic h “ provide s e le m e nta ry or se c onda

ry e duc at ion, a s de te rm ine d unde r State la

w.” In the distric t c ourt, B urns a rgue d tha t whe the r the e duc at iona l institution in que stion—

the Le ola M . Hava rd Ea rly Educ ation Sc hool (“ Le ola ” )— inde e d provide d e le m e nta ry e duc ation unde r state la

w wa s a m i xe d que stion of la

w
and fa c t, a

nd tha t the jury should de c ide whe the r Le o la m e t the distric t c ourt’ s de finition of a

n e le m e nta

ry e d uc ation provider unde r C a lifornia la w. The distric t
c ourt inste a d de t e rm ine d tha t it wa s the a

ppropria t e de c isionm ake r for both pa rts of the q ue stion a nd we nt on to find tha

t Le ola provide d e le m e n ta

ry e duc ation. The Fifth a

nd Sixth Am e ndm e nts prote c t a de fe nda

nt’ s right to ha

ve a jury de te rm i ne , be y ond a

re a s ona ble doubt, his guilt of e

ve ry e le m e n t of the c rim e with whic h he is c ha

rge d. Se e Unite d State

s v . Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 509–10 (1995); In re W inship , 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). This provision e xte nds to so-c a lle d “ sube le m e nts,” or “ fa c ts ne c e ssa ry to prove an

offe nse .” Se eMe dle

y v . Runne ls , 506
2F.3d 857, 864 n.5, 865 (9th C ir. 2007). A c la im that the tria l c ourt fa ile d to pre se nt the j ury with e v e ry

e le m e nt of a

c rim e c ha

rge d is re vie we d de novo. Unite d State s
v . K napp , 120 F.3d 928, 930 (9th C ir. 2007). If this ty pe of c onstitutiona

l e rror is found, it is re vie we d for ha rm le ssne ss. Se e Unite d State s v . Smith , 561 F.3d 934, 938 (9th C i r. 2009) (e n

ba nc ) (noting tha

t “ om itting a

n offe nse e le m e nt from

a jury instruc tion is ‘ sim

ply an e rror in the tria l proc e ss itse l f’ and not a ‘ de fe c t a ffe c ting the fram e work within which t he tria l proc e e ds’ ” ) (quoting N e de r v . Unite d State

s, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999)). Om itting a n offe nse e le m e nt from

a jury instruc tion is ha rm le s s if it is “ ‘ c l e ar be y ond a re a sona b le doubt tha

t a ra t iona l jury

would ha ve found the de fe n d ant guilty a bse nt the e rror.’ ” Unite d State s v . Thongsy , 577 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting N e de r , 527 U.S. a

t 18). The distric t c ourt viola

te d the Fifth a

n d Sixth Am e ndm e nts whe n it de c ide d that Le ola provide d e le m e nta

ry e duc ation unde r C a lifornia la w a nd the re fore
satisfie d the sc hool-z o n e e le m e nt of 18 U.S.C . § 922(q)(2)(A), ra the r tha n subm itting tha

t que stion to the

jury . Whe the r Le ola

provide d e le m e n ta ry e duc ation
a s de fine d

by sta te la w wa s a m ixe d que stion of la

wan d fa c t . It wa s a

ppropria te for the distric t judge to de te rm ine the c ontours of e l e m e nta ry e duc ation unde r C a lifornia la w. Howe ve r, the que stion whe the r Le ola a c tua l ly provide d e l e m e nta

ry

3e duc a tion unde r that de finition should ha ve be e n give n to the jury

a s a ne c e ssa ry
e le m e nt of the offe nse . The distric t c ourt’ s e rror wa s not ha rm le ss. During trial, both B urns a nd the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d e vide nc e re le va nt to suc h a

de te rm ination, inc luding te stim ony on the tra

nsitiona l kinde rga

rte n a nd a fte r-sc h ool progra

m s tha t Le ola provide d. B urns pre se nte d te stim ony from Le ola ’ s princ ipa l, who te stifie d tha t Le ola w a s not a

n e le m e n ta

ry sc hool. Through c ross-e xam ination, B urns a lso
ra ise d doubts on whethe r the gove rnm e nt’ s witne ss on theissue c ould c re dibly te stify a bout Le ola ’ s e duc ation progra m s a nd whe the r the y

c onstitute d e le m e nta

ry
e duc a tion unde r C a lifornia l aw. W e the re fore c annot sa y tha t it is “ c l e ar be y ond a
re a s ona ble doubt tha

t a ra tiona l jury

would ha ve found the de fe n d ant guilty a bse nt the e rror.” Se e N

e de r , 527 U.S. a

t 18. W e re ve rse and re m and for a ne w tria l. B urns a l so a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously re quire d a

showing of ba d fa ith in orde r to give an a dve rse -infe re nc e jury instruc tion. W e re vie w a distric t c o urt’ s re fusa l t o give suc h a n instruc tion for a

buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Siv illa , 714 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th C ir. 2013). The n-Judge Ke nne d y ’ s
c onc urre nc e in Unite d State s v . Loud Haw

k, 628 F.2d 1139, 1151–56 (9th C ir. 1979) (e n ba

nc ), provide s the rule gove rning sa nc t ions for lost or de stroy e d
e vide nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Robe rtson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th C i r. 2018);

4Siv i lla , 714 F.3d a t 1173. It ha s no ba d fa ith re q uire m e nt. Se e Siv illa , 714 F.3d a t 1173
. W e c o nc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

re fusing to give
an a d ve rse -infe re nc e instruc tion a bse n t a showing of ba d fa ith by

the gove rnm e nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ) (holding tha

t fa ilure to a

pply the c o rre c t le ga l rule is a n a buse of disc re tion). W e le ave it to thedistric t c ourt on re m and to a pply the n-Judge Ke nne dy ’ s Loud Hawk ba la nc ing te st in thefirst insta n c e to de te rm ine whe the r an a dve rse -infe re nc e instruc tion is a

ppropria te at a ny re tria l. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D
.

5