Opinion ID: 3055301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: jury charge and indictment

Text: We review a district court’s jury instructions de novo “to determine whether the instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.” United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341, 1342 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We will not reverse a defendant’s conviction based on a challenge to a jury charge unless the Court is “left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Gibson, 708 F.3d at 1275 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Carson’s sixth and seventh challenges are claims that the jury instructions constructively amended the superseding indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment, permitting the jury to convict Carson for a conspiracy not charged by the indictment. “It is well settled that a defendant enjoys a Fifth Amendment right to be tried on felony charges returned by a grand jury indictment and that only the grand jury may broaden the charges in the indictment once it has been returned.” United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). A district court may not broaden the charges by constructive amendment. Id. “In evaluating 45 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 46 of 53 whether the indictment was constructively amended, we review the district court’s jury instructions . . . in context to determine whether an expansion of the indictment occurred either literally or in effect.” United States v. Seher, 562 F.3d 1344, 1363 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A jury instruction amends an indictment when it broadens the possible bases for conviction beyond what is contained in the indictment.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Carson argues two jury charges constructively amended the superseding indictment: (1) the conspiracy charge permitted the jury to convict Carson of a conspiracy to distribute any one of the controlled substances listed in the indictment, while the indictment charged Carson with a conspiracy to distribute all four controlled substances; and (2) the conspiracy charge allowed the jury to convict Carson for a “lesser-included offense” of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute less than 100 grams of heroin, while the indictment charged Carson with a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin. The government responds that: (1) “the law is well established that where an indictment charges in the conjunctive several means of violating a statute, a conviction may be obtained on proof of only one of the means, and accordingly the jury instruction may properly be framed in the disjunctive,” see United States v. 46 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 47 of 53 Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294, 1300 (11th Cir. 2009); and (2) the inclusion of a charge on the amount of heroin involved in the conspiracy mattered only for purposes of sentencing and did not constructively amend the indictment. We next review the relevant jury instructions. Specifically over the defendant’s objection, the district court instructed the jury that: as to Count One, you will note that the Defendant is not charged with committing a substantive offense; rather, he is charged with conspiring to commit the offense. It’s a separate Federal crime for anyone to conspire to knowingly possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, heroin, cocaine hydrochloride or marijuana. While the Indictment is worded in the conjunctive, the law permits the government to prove the conspiracy charged in the disjunctive. In other words, in order for a defendant to be found guilty, it will be sufficient if the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant conspired to possess one of the controlled substances mentioned in Count 1, even if they were not involved in the other conspiracy, as long as all 12 of you agree as to which conspiracy the defendant was involved in. So, for example, if all 12 of you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was involved in a conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute oxycontin, that would be sufficient to convict the defendant of Count One, even if you find the defendant was not also involved in a conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute heroin, cocaine hydrochloride or marijuana. .... The Defendant can be found guilty only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
accomplish a shared and unlawful plan to possess heroin, or oxycodone, or cocaine hydrochloride, or marijuana, as described in Count One; (2) the Defendant . . . knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully joined in it; and (3) the object of the unlawful plan was to possess with the 47 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 48 of 53 intent to distribute oxycodone, or cocaine hydrochloride, or marijuana, or more than one hundred grams of heroin. The district court also included, with the defendant’s approval, a multiple conspiracies charge in line with Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 13.3: Proof of several separate conspiracies isn’t proof of the single, overall conspiracy charged in the indictment unless one of the several conspiracies proved is the single overall conspiracy. You must decide whether the single overall conspiracy charged existed between two or more conspirators. If not, then you find the Defendants [sic] not guilty of that charge. But if you decide that a single overall conspiracy did exist, then you must decide who the conspirators were. And if you decide that a particular Defendant was a member of some other conspiracy—not the one charged—then you must find that Defendant not guilty. So to find a Defendant guilty, you must all agree that the Defendant was a member of the conspiracy charged—not a member of some other separate conspiracy. As to the verdict form, the district court also reviewed that form with the jury, instructing the jury that they may need to determine what drugs were involved in the conspiracy, and in the case of heroin, how much: “In other words, you will need to decide if you find that this defendant is guilty of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute or distribute heroin weighing 100 grams or more or weighing less than 100 grams.” The district court then stated: The defendant is charged with possessing and intending to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin. But you may find the defendant guilty of the crime even if the amount of the controlled substance for which he should be held responsible is less than 100 grams. So if you find the defendant guilty, you must also unanimously agree on the weight of heroin the defendant possessed and specify the amount on the verdict form. 48 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 49 of 53 With those instructions in mind, we next consider the relevant statutes. In Count 1 of the superseding indictment, Carson was charged with conspiring to knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully possess with the intent to distribute and distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); an amount of oxycodone (Oxycontin), in violation of § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); and a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, in violation of § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Section 841(a)(1) provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Section 846 provides that “any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter [including § 841(a)] shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.” 21 U.S.C. § 846. Together, these statutes provide that a person may violate § 846 by conspiring to violate § 841(a)(1). For purposes of a conviction under § 841(a)(1) and by extension § 846, the specific amount and type of drugs involved 49 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 50 of 53 do not matter, and “the government’s failure to prove the amount or type charged in the indictment does not merit reversal.” United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1233 (11th Cir. 2005). The amount and quantity of drugs only matter for purposes of § 841(b). Section 841(b) “provides enhanced maximum sentences for persons convicted of violating §§ 841(a) or 846, depending on the quantity and type of drug involved.” Sanders, 668 F.3d at 1309 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)). Further, the enhanced penalties found in § 841(b) “cannot apply unless the jury determines the drug type and quantity involved in the overall drug conspiracy offense.” Id.; see also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362–63 (2000). We consider first Carson’s argument that the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment by charging the conspiracy as one to possess with the intent to distribute four controlled substances disjunctively, while the indictment charged the conspiracy as one to possess with the intent to distribute those same substances conjunctively. As we noted above, neither the type of drug nor the quantity of that drug is an element of the offense of conspiracy to violate § 841(a)(1). Count 1 of the superseding indictment charged a generic violation of §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. “We recognize that [the] count adds sentencing language to give Apprendi notice that the government also charged that the overall conspiracy [involved heroin in an 50 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 51 of 53 amount of 100 grams or more, cocaine hydrochloride, oxycodone, or marijuana]. This language, however, is not required for conviction under § 841(a) but is required to set the statutory maximum sentence under § 841(b).” Sanders, 668 F.3d at 1311. Thus, the fact that the jury instructions changed the “and” to “or” in the list of controlled substances did not change the elements of the offense and did not constructively amend Carson’s indictment. A conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute any of the four controlled substances listed in the indictment could support a conviction under §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. It is also well-settled that the government may charge in the conjunctive and prove in the disjunctive. See Simpson, 228 F.3d at 1300. Because the offense for which Carson was convicted was clearly encompassed by the indictment against the defendant, Carson is not being punished for actions that are beyond the reach of the charging document. The jury instructions that referred to the four drugs in the disjunctive did not constructively amend the defendant’s indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 860, 861 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[I]t is well settled that a conspiracy to distribute more than one controlled substance may be charged in the conjunctive . . . but submitted to the jury . . . in the disjunctive.”); United States v. Muelbl, 739 F.2d 1175, 1178– 84 (7th Cir. 1984) (concluding that defendant’s indictment was not constructively amended by jury instruction permitting the jury to find the defendant guilty of 51 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 52 of 53 conspiring to distribute marijuana, cocaine, or methaqualone even though indictment charged the defendant with conspiring to distribute marijuana, cocaine, and methaqualone). Similarly, the amount of heroin involved in the offense is not an element of the offense; thus, that the jury instructions permitted the jury to find Carson guilty of Count 1 even if the conspiracy involved less than 100 grams of heroin—despite being charged with a conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin—did not constructively amend the indictment. Moreover, the district court reiterated that the jury had to find the quantity of heroin involved only after determining whether Carson had committed the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In his reply brief on appeal, Carson also argues that part of the instruction about the verdict form was misleading, in that it does not mention conspiracy and states the defendant “is charged with possessing and intending to distribute at least” 100 grams of heroin. Even though “conspiracy” should have been used in this one sentence, the district court later stated: “You don’t answer those questions [concerning the amount of heroin] if you don’t find that the defendant conspired to possess with the intent to distribute heroin.” Also the charge overall clearly described Count 1 as a conspiracy charge, and the special verdict form itself states: 1. We, the Jury, find the Defendant, Corderell DeWayne Carson, GUILTY/NOT GUILTY, as charged in Count One of the indictment. 52 Case: 12-10682 Date Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 53 of 53 [Note: If you find the Defendant not guilty as charged in Count One, you need not consider paragraph 2 below. In that case, go straight to paragraph 3] 2. We, the Jury, having found the Defendant guilty of the offense charged in Count One, further find with respect to this charge that he conspired to possess with the intent to distribute or distribute the following (place an X in the appropriate box): Oxycodone (Oxycontin)  Heroin

After considering the district court’s instructions in context and in light of the jury’s special verdict, we conclude that the jury was not misled into convicting Carson of a crime for which he was not indicted. Because Carson could not have been convicted of an offense for which he was not indicted, the district court’s jury charges did not constructively amend the indictment.