Opinion ID: 594688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Instruction

Text: 12 Mr. Beatty argued before the district court, to no avail, that without a specific jury instruction or a special verdict form, the jurors might not agree unanimously about which of the three stashes of cocaine or which of the five firearms he possessed. He argues to this court that the lower court's use of a general instruction therefore rendered the resulting verdict constitutionally impermissible. A general instruction to the jury on unanimity is appropriate unless there is a genuine risk that the jury is confused or that a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that a defendant committed different acts. United States v. Duncan, 850 F.2d 1104, 1114 (6th Cir.1988). Such a risk did not exist with respect to the narcotics charge. The police found 124 grams of cocaine in Beatty's room, 11.45 grams in an upstairs bedroom, and .218 grams in a co-defendant's shoe. Beatty was indicted for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine and the judge instructed the jury three times that the government was required to prove that the defendant possessed at least this amount. See Tr. III at 67 (I want to make it clear that the charge in the indictment ... required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of the controlled substance was 50 grams or more); id. at 58; id. at 59. The verdict form similarly required the jury to find that Beatty possessed over 50 grams. See Appellee's Brief at Appendix D. Since the cocaine in Beatty's bedroom was the only stash greater than 50 grams, the jury must have agreed that he possessed this amount in order to find him guilty of the narcotics offense. It is highly implausible that any juror became confused and convicted Beatty of possessing over 50 grams but only believed he possessed the drugs in the upstairs bedroom or the co-defendant's shoe which together amounted to less than 12 grams. 13 Likewise, the weapons charge did not require a specific jury instruction. Because the evidence was essentially the same as to each weapon and the evidence as a whole was sufficient to demonstrate constructive possession of each of the guns, it is highly unlikely that a juror would believe that one or more of the weapons was not possessed by Beatty. See United States v. North, 920 F.2d 940, 951 (D.C.Cir.1990) ( 'The evidence was identical as to all five documents ... [t]hus, the jury was restricted to one course of events.' ) (quoting Independent Counsel's petition for rehearing), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2235 (1991). Moreover, the verdict form required the jury to find unanimously that Beatty did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a .357 magnum revolver, a .22 caliber rifle, a .38 caliber revolver, a .380 automatic pistol and a .22 calibre revolver during and in relation to drug trafficking. See Appellee's Brief at Appendix D (emphasis added). While there is some ambiguity because of the singular a firearm, the form did envision the jury finding Mr. Beatty guilty of possessing all the weapons.