United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-3739NI

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern v. * District of Iowa. * James Kevin Stiles, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: April 14, 1997

Filed: June 3, 1997

_____________ Befo re RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and FAGG and MURPHY, Circui t Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.

James Kevin Stiles and his drug partner retrieved a large package o f methamphetam ine from the trunk of a rental car parked at the Cedar Rapids airport

. Unknown to Stiles, the police videotaped the entire ep isode. The Government charged Stiles with several drug-related offenses, but Stiles fled to Mexico shortly before hi s trial. About a year la

ter, Stiles was returned to the United States and a jury convicted hi m of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy t o distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), 846 (1994). Stiles appeals, and we affirm.-2-

Stiles contends the district court’s decision to give a deliberate ignorance jur y instruction was clearly erroneous. S ee United States v. Gonzales , 90 F.3d 1363, 1371 (8th Cir. 1996). A deliberate ignorance instruction is appropriate when the defendant fails to investigate circum stances that indicate criminal activity is probably afoot. See United States v. Barnhart , 979 F.2d 647, 651-52 (8th Cir. 1992). Here, Stiles denied having any knowledge about the methamphetamine package, and claimed h e accompanied his partner to Iowa so he could shop at an army surp lus store. In addition to the evidence of either actual knowledge or no knowledge on Stile s’s part, we believe a reasonable jury could have found Stiles consciously chose to remain ignorant of the true reason for tracking down the rental car. See Unit ed States v. Gruenberg , 989 F.2d 971, 974-75 (8th Cir. 1993) (government may proceed under both actual knowledg e and delibe rate ignorance theories). Stiles knew his partner’s roommate had bee n arrested a few weeks earlier for transporting drugs in the rental car, and Stiles wa s within e arshot when his partner lied to the rental car agent about why the partne r needed to search

the car. Even if the deliberate ignorance instruction was improperly given, the error was harmless because t here is overpowering evidence of Stiles’s guilt. See Barnhart , 979 F.2d at 652-53. The police videotape captured Stiles directing his pa rtner to the precise location of the methamphetamine package, and as soon as th e officers converged on the scene Stiles told his partner, “keep your . . . mouth shut!” Likewise, we reject Stiles’s related contention that the evidence was insufficient t o establish he was involved in his partner’s drug trafficking activity. See United States v. Moore , 911 F.2d 140, 144 (8th Cir. 1990) (standard of review).
Last, Stiles contends the district court should have granted his motion for a mistrial after a police detective violated the district court’s pretrial or der prohibiting any testimony about the

army weapons that were found at Stiles’s home. Considering the detective’s unrepeated remark in context of the entire case, we conclude the distric t court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial. See United States v. Kiser , 948 F.2d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 1991). Indeed, the detective’s weapons-relate d comment was made in response to a broad question by Stiles ’s counsel, and the district-3-

court immediately cured any potential preju dice by instructing the jury to disregard the testimony. See Moore , 911 F.2d at 143.

We thus affirm Stiles’s convictions.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.