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James Kevin Stiles, * [UNPUBLISHED]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

_____________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit

Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

James Kevin Stiles and his drug partner retrieved a large package of

methamphetamine from the trunk of a rental car parked at the Cedar Rapids airport.

Unknown to Stiles, the police videotaped the entire episode. The Government charged

Stiles with several drug-related offenses, but Stiles fled to Mexico shortly before his

trial. About a year later, Stiles was returned to the United States and a jury convicted

him of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to

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 jury

instruction was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Gonzales, 90 F.3d 1363, 1371

(8th Cir. 1996). A deliberate ignorance instruction is appropriate when the defendant

fails to investigate circumstances 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 he

accompanied his partner to Iowa so he could shop at an army surplus store. In addition

to the evidence of either actual knowledge or no knowledge on Stiles’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 United States v. Gruenberg, 989 F.2d

971, 974-75 (8th Cir. 1993) (government may proceed under both actual knowledge

and deliberate ignorance theories). Stiles knew his partner’s roommate had been

arrested a few weeks earlier for transporting drugs in the rental car, and Stiles was

within earshot when his partner lied to the rental car agent about why the partner

needed to search the car. Even if the deliberate ignorance instruction was improperly

given, the error was harmless because there is overpowering evidence of Stiles’s guilt.

See Barnhart, 979 F.2d at 652-53. The police videotape captured Stiles directing his

partner to the precise location of the methamphetamine package, and as soon as the

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 to

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 order 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 district

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-related

comment was made in response to a broad question by Stiles’s counsel, and the district
-3-

court immediately cured any potential prejudice 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.