Opinion ID: 71274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Charge to Count V

Text: Tokars claims that the district court's jury charge regarding 16 We conclude that Tokars's argument regarding the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence is meritless in light of his voluntary consent to the search. Count V, the murder-for-hire count, was modified by the court without notice, and thus created a variance from the evidence presented at trial. Tokars contends that the parties and the court agreed to a jury instruction that would require the jury to make a unanimous finding as to each of two phone calls made in furtherance of the murder-for-hire scheme. During the charge conference, the government consented to Tokars's requested instruction, but the court, refusing to get involved in a discussion of the evidence with the jury, concerned itself with clarifying the interstate element of the offense. As previously mentioned, we review a district court's refusal to give a requested charge for abuse of discretion. Maduno, 40 F.3d at 1215. Based on our review of the record, we see no abuse of discretion concerning this issue.