Opinion ID: 3063538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction on “ Marijuana Plant”

Text: Acosta argues that the district court should have granted him a mistrial because it failed to instruct the jury on the definition of a “marijuana plant.” This is so, Acosta contends, because the government charged him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 100 marijuana plants, and a central issue in the case was whether the 84 root balls constituted “marijuana plants.”1 “We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision not to grant a mistrial.” United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir. 2007). “A mistrial should be granted if the defendant’s substantial rights are prejudicially affected. This occurs when there is a reasonable probability that, but for the remarks, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Id.; see also United States v. Williams, 541 F.3d 1087, 1089 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Error in jury instructions does not constitute grounds for reversal unless a reasonable likelihood exists that it affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”). 1 Acosta does not contest the 71 intact marijuana plants found in the house. 18 We have held that “cuttings and seedlings are not marihuana plants within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) unless there is some readily observable evidence of root formation.” United States v. Foree, 43 F.3d 1572, 1581 (11th Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). We pointed out that our “holding on the sentencing issue does not imply, however, that [the defendants] were entitled to a requested jury instruction . . . on this definition of marihuana plant.” Id. at 1582 (quotation omitted). This was so because “[t]he proffered instruction had no relevance to anything the government was required to prove,” as it was merely required to prove that the defendants “possessed some mature plants” with an intent to distribute, a fact which was not in dispute. Id. In Foree, however, the indictment merely charged the defendants with possession and conspiracy to possess an unspecified number of marijuana plants. See id. at 1574. In contrast, the indictment in this case charged Acosta with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 100 marijuana plants. Thus, to the extent that there was a dispute regarding the number of marijuana plants at issue in this case, the court may have been obligated to issue an instruction. However, we express no opinion on that issue because we conclude that any error was harmless, as the 84 root balls 19 that Acosta challenges constituted “marijuana plants.”2 See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17) (defining “plant” as “an organism having leaves and a readily observable root formation (e.g., a marihuana cutting having roots, a rootball, or root hairs is a marihuana plant)”) (emphasis added); see also Foree, 43 F.3d at 1581 (holding that “cuttings and seedlings are not marihuana plants unless there is some readily observable evidence of root formation”) (quotations omitted).