Opinion ID: 655158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: On or about Language in Indictment

Text: 8 Defendant contends that the District Court erred in its instruction regarding the jury's proper consideration of the on or about language contained in the indictment. In count one of the indictment, the grand jury charged that [o]n or about March 23, 1992, at 5927 Hedge, Detroit ... the defendant ... did knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute cocaine base.... Count two charged that [o]n or about March 23, 1992, at 5927 Hedge, Detroit ... the defendant ... used and carried a firearm, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Counts three through five charged that [o]n or about March 23, 1992, defendant, having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, possessed three different types of firearms. 9 Regarding the on or about language contained in the indictment, the District Court instructed the jury as follows: 10 Now, I want to say a word about the dates that have been mentioned in the amended indictment. 11 The amended indictment charges that the crimes occurred on or about a certain date. The government does not have to prove that the crimes happened on that exact date. But the government must prove that the crimes occurred reasonably close to that date. 12 Joint App. at 211. See United States v. Ford, 872 F.2d 1231, 1237 (6th Cir.1989) (When 'on or about' language is used in an indictment, proof of the exact date of an offense is not required as long as a date reasonably near that named in the indictment is established.), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 918 (1990); Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 2.04, Sixth Circuit 1991 Edition. Defendant maintains that this instruction was error because the proof at trial required the court to instruct the jury that the government had the burden of proving the crimes occurred on the exact March 23, 1992 date. Specifically, defendant contends that the government failed to present any evidence that the guns or drugs were present in the house on any day other than March 23, 1992. Defendant's defense is that he was not the individual present in the house on March 23, 1992 when the officers executed the search warrant. He argues that the District Court's instruction permitted the jury to convict him even if they agreed he was not present on that date. 13 In United States v. Neuroth, 809 F.2d 339, 341-42 (6th Cir.1987), this Court stated that: 14 In determining whether an on or about instruction is proper in a particular case, the district court should look at how specifically the government alleges, in its indictment, the date on which the offense occurred, and compare that to the proof at trial as to what date the offense occurred. If the indictment or the proof points exclusively to a particular date, it would be preferable for the trial judge to avoid the on or about language. 15 This Court further held, however, that if all the evidence points exclusively to a particular day, the on or about instruction can be harmless error: 16 We believe the concern that an on or about instruction may encourage a jury to speculate wildly as to the commission of a crime on a date not covered by the proof is misplaced. A jury would have no reason to speculate on a date if there was no proof directed thereto. The risk that a jury may make a finding of fact unsupported by the evidence is inherent in every case and cannot be obviated completely by any instruction. 17 Id. at 342. 18 Here, in addition to the evidence relating the events of March 23, 1992, the government also presented sufficient evidence establishing defendant's constructive possession of the guns and drugs found at the Hedge Street residence. Constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others. United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866 (1973). The government presented evidence that defendant listed the Hedge Street address as his residence (1) when reporting to pre-trial services; (2) when receiving pre-trial services visitors; and (3) under oath in a court proceeding. ATF agents also found defendant's keys and several documents addressed to the defendant at the Hedge Street address. The agents also found a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and cocaine in the kitchen of the residence. Defendant's fingerprint was on the metal platter (found in the kitchen) which contained cash and cocaine. Additionally, the agents found two other firearms in a bedroom of the house in which Andre loves Laura was written on the wall. This evidence, combined with the testimony of the agents that they observed defendant at the Hedge Street residence during the two weeks preceding March 23, 1992, and Agent Soranno's testimony that the search warrant was obtained because the agents had information that defendant was selling cocaine from those premises, while armed, which was not objected to, supports defendant's convictions for drug and gun possession on or about March 23, 1992. Alternatively, if defendant is correct that all of the evidence relates to the March 23 date, [w]e cannot say that the asserted error 'more probably than not' affected the verdict in this case. Therefore, such error, if any, was harmless. Neuroth, 809 F.2d at 342. 19