Opinion ID: 3039711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Confusing Jury Instruction Claim

Text: Edwards also contends that the District Court’s instruction to the jury regarding constructive possession of a firearm was “confusing” and “unintelligible.” These claims are groundless. Edwards essentially argues that the jury might have interpreted the court’s distinction between “direct” and “indirect” control as stating that Edwards could be found to have had possession of the gun, even if he was not aware that it was in the car, as long as he knew that the object was, in fact, a gun. However, the Court’s instruction, regardless of the choice of language, is correct as a matter of law. The Court’s instruction, taken in toto, adequately explained the concept that “possession” may be “actual” or “constructive,” and that such possession must have additionally been “knowing” for the defendant to be found guilty. While it is always possible that a jury may be confused by a poorly articulated instruction, it seems highly unlikely that the jury 11 was confused in this instance. The question of whether Edwards or Matthews placed the gun under the dashboard was the central issue in the case. After deciding that question, applying the legal concept of possession is relatively intuitive and not highly complicated in this context. Moreover, the issue was not preserved for review because Edwards did not object to the instructions at the time or ask for any point to be clarified. Regardless, the instruction was correct as a matter of law and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in the manner in which it articulated the legal concepts explained therein.