Opinion ID: 1226361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Conspiracy and Aiding and Abetting

Text: Lastly, Kuehne alleges that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the difference between a conspiracy and aiding and abetting. Because Kuehne did not raise this allegation before the district court, plain error review applies. In the instant case, we find that the district court did not err in instructing the jury. Although the jury instructions issued by the district court were far from perfect, it appears that the district court attempted to clarify for the jury the meaning of terms such as aiding and abetting. For example, when discussing count 2, which alleged that Kuehne aided and abetted Marlow and Duckro in stealing two firearms, the district court stated Ladies and gentlemen, for you to find the Defendant, John David Kuehne, Jr. guilty of aiding and abetting in the theft of firearms . . . it is not necessary for you to find that he personally committed the crime himself. You may also find him guilty if he intentionally helped or encouraged someone to commit the crime. A person who does this is called an aider and abettor. (J.A. at 271) Moreover, even if the district court's attempts to provide guidance to the jury were insufficient, Kuehne has not alleged that the error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, Kuehne's challenge to the district court's jury instructions must fail.