# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 20 62

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Rau l To va r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Farg o

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 14 Fil ed : J ul y

11 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A jury co nv ic te d Rau l Tov ar fo r pa rti ci pa ti ng in a dr ug co ns pi racy. At th e cl os e of ev id en ce du rin g Tov ar's tri al
, th e di st ric t co ur t i n a d v ert en tl y om it te d a jury 1

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.in st ru ct io n du rin g it s fin al in st ru ct io ns to th e pa rti es an d th e jury. Fo ll owi ng cl os in g

arg um en ts bu t be fo re jury de li be rat io ns , th e co ur t di sc ov ered th e om is si on an d read th e m is si ng in st ru ct io n to th e jury. Tov ar m ov ed fo r a ne w tri al
, al le gi ng th at th e ad di ti on al jury in st ru ct io n was im pe rm is si bl y an d im

pr ov id en tl y gi ve n. The dis tri ct

co u rt de ni ed th e m ot io n co nc lu di ng th at ev en if th e in st ru ct io n was gi ve n in erro r, Tov ar s u f

f e r e d no act ua l pr ejud ic e. Tov ar ap pe al s, al le gi ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro ced ur e 3 0( b) . W e fi nd no erro r an d a ffi rm

.

I. Bac kg ro un d
In Mar ch 20 12
, Tov ar was in di ct ed wit h on e co un t of co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ).
He was als o c ha rg ed as a n a id er an d a be tt er u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 2.

On Ja nu ary 1 5, 20 13 , t h e di st ric t co ur t co nd uc te d a fin al pr et ria l co nf eren ce. At th at co nf

eren ce, th e co ur t a n d th e pa rti es rev ie wed th e pr el im in ary jury in st ru ct io ns , in cl ud in g in st ru ct io n P-1 3, whi ch st at ed in pa rt, "Th e Gov ern m en t m us t
pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t , h o w e v er, th at a m eas ur ab le am ou nt of th e

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e was , in fact
, kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y po ss es se d wit h in te nt
to di st rib ut e or di s tri bu te d by th e Defen da nt ." The pr el im in ary in st ru ct io ns di d no t in cl ud e an y in st ru ct io n co nc ern in g ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

. Neit he r pa rty ob jecte d to th e pr el im in ary in st ru ct io ns

.

The tri al be ga n th e sa m e da y

. The in di ct m en t was read to th e jury po ol

. Afte r

v o i r di re an d im

pa ne li ng of th e jury, th e co ur t read th e pr el im in ary in st ru ct i o n s , in cl ud in g In st ru ct io n P-1 3, to th e jury. On Ja nu ary 18
, 20 13
, th e pa rti es rece iv ed th e pr op os ed fin al jury in st ru ct io ns

. The fin al in st ru ct io ns di d no t in cl ud e an ai di ng an d ab et ti ng in st ru c t i o n

. O n Ja nu ary 22
, 20 13
, th e jury was reco nv en ed aft er a ho li da y week en d. The c o u r t a d v i se d th e jury th at th e pr el im in ary in st ru ct io ns rem ai ne d in effe ct an d read t h e fin al in st ru ct io ns

. Neit he r pa rty ob jecte d to th e cl os in g in st ru ct io ns , no r di d t he y pro po se an y

ad di ti on al in st ru ct io ns

.

-2

-Afte r cl os in g arg u men ts , th e co ur t cal le d fo r a si de ba r an d ex pl ai ne d to th e

pa rti es th at it ha d no t in st ru ct ed th e ju r y on ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

. Ove r de fen se

co un se l's ob

jecti on , th e co ur t read th e ai di ng an d ab et ti ng in st ru ct io n ("I ns tru ct io n F9" ) to th e jury. Th e c o u r t o f f ered bo th pa rti es th e op po rtu ni ty to m ak e ad di ti on al
arg um en ts in li gh t of th e ad di ti on al in st ru ct io n— bo th pa rti es de cl in e d. Afte r de li be rat io n, th e jury fo un d Tov ar gu il ty of bo th co ns pi racy an d ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

.

Tov ar m ov ed fo r a ne w tri al un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al P r o c ed ur e 33
, al le gi ng th at In st ru ct io n F-9 was im pe rm is si bl y or im

pr ov id en tl y gi ve n. Co un se l

av erre d th at he de vo te d hi s pr ep arat io n fo r cl os in g arg um en t to In st ru ct io n P-1 3 an d it s act ua l po ss es si on el em en t an d was th eref or e pr ejud ic ed by th e la te ad di ti on of th e ai di ng an d a be tt in g i ns tru ct io n, wh ic h c on ta in s n o s uc h p os se ss io n e le m en t.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Tov ar's m ot io n. The co ur t fo un d th at by th e te rm s of Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 30
, th e co ur t m ay in st ru ct th e jury be fo re or aft er cl os in g arg um en ts , or at bo th ti m es

. The co ur t no te d th at bo th pa rti es were gi ve n th e op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t add it io na l argu m en ts aft er th e ad di ti on al in st ru ct io n an d th at bo th pa rti es de cl in ed

. Tov ar's in di ct m en t pu t hi m on no ti ce th at he co ul d be co nv ic te d

as an ai de r an d ab et te r. The co ur t fu rth er co nc lu de d th at ev en if th e in st ru ct io n ha d be en gi ve n in erro r, Tov ar co ul d no t de m on st rat e th at he su ffer ed act ua l
pr ejud ic e—t he jury ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t on th e co ns pi racy ch arg e it se lf, m ean in g th at ev en if th e di st in ct , al te rn at iv e ai di ng an d ab et ti ng co nv ic ti on were va cat ed
, Tov ar's co nv ic ti on wou ld st il l s ta nd

.

II. Dis cu ss io n Tov ar arg ue s on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al
Pro ced ur e 30 (b ) by erro ne ou sl y ad di ng a jury in st ru ct io n aft er cl os in g arg um en ts

. He

co nt en ds th at th is erro r pr ejud ic ed co un se l in pr ep arat io n of cl os in g arg um en ts , an d th at th e erro r "co ul d no t ha ve be en cu red by fu rth er arg um en t." Tov ar con te nd s th at

co un se l p rep ared for clo si ng arg um en ts on th e ba si s of th e in st ru ct io ns as pro vi de d

-3

-on Ja nu ary 18
, 20 13
, an d "p rem is ed ha lf of hi s arg um en t" on th e go ve rn m en t's bu rd en

to pr ov e Tov ar act ua ll y po ss es se d so m e of th e dr ug s as pa rt of th e co ns pi racy. He

av ers th at th e in tro du ct io n In st ru ct io n F-9 un de rm in ed h i s c r e di bi li ty wit h th e jury

su ch th at no ad di ti on al arg um en t wou ld ha ve cu red th e erro r. Tov ar al so co nt en ds th at th e go ve rn m en t waiv ed th e om is si on of In st ru ct io n F

- 9 b y f a il in g to ob

ject to th e

om is si on be fo re cl os in g a rg um en ts

.

"Co m pl ia nc e wit h ru le s of c r i mi na l pr oc ed ur e is rev ie wed de no vo ." Uni te d St at es v. Th ei mer , 55 7 F.3 d 57 6, 57 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dav ie s , 38 0 F.3 d 32 9, 33 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). "[A] vi ol at io n o f [Fed eral ] Ru le [o f Cri m in al
Pro ced ur e] 30 is no t rev ers ib le erro r un le ss th e co m pl ai ni ng de fen da nt is pr ejud ic ed by th e erro r." Uni te d St at es v. Pembe rt on , 12 1 F.3 d 11 57 , 11 67 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). "Fo r th i s p u r p o s e , a de fen da nt is pr ejud ic ed if he is un fai rly pr ev en te d fro m arg ui ng hi s de fen s e t o th e jury or is su bs ta nt ia ll y m is le d in fo rm ul at in g hi s arg um en ts ." Id

. at 11 68 (qu ot at io n, al te rat io n, an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Ru le 30 go ve rn s t he de li ve ry of ju ry in st ru ct io ns . Rul e 3 0 p ro vi de s:

(a) In Gene ral . Any

pa rty m ay

req ue st in writ in g th at th e co ur t i ns tru ct th e jury on th e la w as sp eci fie d in th e req ue st

. The req ue st m us t be m ad e at th e cl os e o f t h e ev id en ce or at an y earl ie r ti m e th at th e co ur t

reas on ab ly se ts

. W he n th e req ue st is m ad e, th e req ue st in g pa rty m us t fu rn is h a co py to e ve ry

ot he r pa rty.
(b ) Ru li ng o n a R e qu es t. The co ur t m us t in fo rm th e pa rti es be fo re cl os in g a rg um en ts ho w it in te nd s t o ru le on th e req ue st ed in st ru ct io ns

. (c) Tim e fo r Giv in g In st ru ct io ns

. The co ur t m ay in st ru ct th e jury be fo re
or aft er t he arg um en ts are co m pl et ed , or a t b ot h t im es

. (d ) Object io ns to In st ru ct io ns

. A pa rty who ob jects to an y po rti on of th e in st ru ct io ns or to a fai lu re to gi ve a req ue st ed in st ru ct io n m us t in fo rm th e co ur t of th e sp eci fic ob jecti on an d th e gr ou nd s f o r th e ob jecti on

-4

-b e f

o r e t h e jury ret ire s to de li be rat e. An op po rtu ni ty m us t be gi ve n to ob jec t o u t o f th e jury's he ari ng an d, on req ue st , ou t of th e jury's pr es en ce. Fai lu re to ob

ject in acco r da nc e wit h th is ru le pr ecl ud es ap pe ll at e rev ie w, exc ep t as pe rm it te d u nd er Ru le 52 (b ).

Tov ar's arg um en t th at gi vi ng th e be la t e d i ns tru ct io n vi ol at ed pa rag rap h (b ) fai ls . P arag rap h (b ) is i n a p p l i c ab le he re. By it s own te rm s, pa rag rap h (b ) ap pl ie s to

" r e q u es te d in st ru ct io ns "— th at is
, in st ru ct io ns req ue st ed pu rs ua nt to pa rag rap h (a )

. Neit he r pa rty re qu es te d In st ru ct io n F-9 ; as a res ul t, th e co ur t di d no t fai l to in fo rm th e pa rti es of ho w it in te nd ed to ru le on th e " r e q u e s t e d in st ru ct io ns " wit h res pe ct to In st ru ct io n F -9 , and th eref or e d id no t v io la te Ru le 30 (b ).

Ru le 30 (c), ad de d aft er th e 19 87 ame n d ment s to th e Ru le s, pe rm it s th e co ur t
to in st ru ct th e jury be fo re or aft er cl os in g arg um en ts , or at bo th ti m es

. The Adv is or y Co m m it te e no te s to th at am en dm en t st at e "t he am en dm en t pl ai nl y in di cat es th at th e

co ur t m ay in st ru ct bo th be fo re an d aft er arg um en ts , whi ch as su res th at th e co ur t
ret ai ns po wer to rem ed y om is si on s in pr e-ar gu m en t in st ru ct io ns or to ad d in st ru ct io ns

ne ces si ta te d by th e arg um en ts ." The Adv is or y Co m m it te e Not e rev eal s th at Ru le 30 (c) ex is ts to rem ed y t h e pr eci se pr ob le m th at face d th e di st ric t co ur t he re: th e in ad ve rte nt om is si on of a jury in st ru ct io n th at th e co ur t ha d in te nd ed gi ve

. Rat he r th an vi ol at e Ru le 30
, th e di st ric t co ur t us ed th e Ru le fo r it s in te nd ed pu rp os e. Thi s is

no t er ro r, m

uc h l es s re ve rs ib le erro r.

Bec au se we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t d i d no t err in gi vi ng an ad di ti on al in st ru ct io n to th e jury aft er cl os in g arg um en ts , we ne ed no t ad dr es s Tov ar's rem ai ni ng arg um en ts

.

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-