Opinion ID: 582726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Montanye's Instructions

Text: 50 Montanye argues the district court erred in rejecting his proposed instruction on the law of conspiracy. Because he only delivered glassware, Montanye requested an instruction stating: 51 The government must prove defendant Montanye knew of the existence of a conspiracy to manufacture, possess and distribute methamphetamine, marijuana and cocaine. Without such knowledge, he cannot be found guilty even if his acts furthered the conspiracy. One does not become a party to a conspiracy by aiding and abetting, through sales of supplies or otherwise, unless he knows of the conspiracy. The inference of such knowledge cannot be drawn merely from knowledge the buyer will use the goods illegally. 52 Addendum to Appellant Montanye's Br. at 17. 53 The district court rejected this instruction, stating that it would amount to an acquittal. 8 The district court has wide discretion in formulating its charge to the jury. United States v. Figueroa, 900 F.2d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 942, 110 S.Ct. 3228, 110 L.Ed.2d 675 (1990). However, defendants shall receive a theory of defense if a timely request is made, the evidence supports the proffered instruction, and the instruction correctly states the law. United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216, 223 (8th Cir.1985). 54 Montanye relies on United States v. Falcone, 311 U.S. 205, 210, 61 S.Ct. 204, 206, 85 L.Ed. 128 (1940), and United States v. Direct Sales, 319 U.S. 703, 709, 63 S.Ct. 1265, 1268, 87 L.Ed. 1674 (1943), to argue that he did not become a party to the conspiracy, even if he knew that the glassware he was delivering would be used for an illegal purpose. 55 In Falcone, the defendants were sugar jobbers who sold sugar to wholesalers who then resold it to illegal distilleries. The Court held that merely because the jobbers knew that their sugar was going to illegal distilleries did not make them part of the conspiracy to produce illegal spirits. Falcone, 311 U.S. at 210, 61 S.Ct. at 206. The Court in Direct Sales rephrased the holding in Falcone, stating that one does not become a party to a conspiracy by aiding and abetting it, through sales of supplies or otherwise, unless he knows of the conspiracy; and the inference of such knowledge cannot be drawn merely from knowledge the buyer will use the goods illegally. Direct Sales, 319 U.S. at 709, 63 S.Ct. at 1268. 56 In Direct Sales, the defendant was a corporation that sold morphine, a controlled substance, in large quantities to a small-town doctor who purchased far more than he could possibly prescribe to his patients. In affirming the conspiracy conviction of the corporation, the Court distinguished Falcone, noting the difference between vendors who sell consumer goods and those who sell regulated, or suspicious goods: 57 The difference is like that between toy pistols or hunting-rifles and machine guns. All articles of commerce may be put to illegal ends. But all do not have inherently the same susceptibility to harmful and illegal use. Nor, by the same token, do all embody the same capacity, from their very nature, for giving the seller notice the buyer will use them unlawfully.... 58 This difference is important for two purposes. One is for making certain that the seller knows the buyer's intended illegal use. The other is to show that by the sale he intends to further, promote and cooperate in it. This intent, when given effect by overt act, is the gist of conspiracy. 59 Id. at 710-11, 63 S.Ct. at 1269. 60 When a vendor sells sophisticated laboratory glassware to private individuals, he might suspect the motives of his customers. In this case, Montanye not only suspected, but knew with certainty before delivering the glassware that he would be aiding an illegal conspiracy. Bruton told him to use a false name when purchasing the glassware, and to avoid being followed by police when driving to the glassware factory. Montanye also behaved as if he knew he was breaking the law. Montanye suggested to Bruton that the delivery should take place between two connecting hotel rooms to avoid detection. When highway patrolmen in two states pulled Montanye over because his rental car did not have its temporary plates properly displayed, Montanye lied when questioned about his destination, and appeared extremely nervous. Because the jury could find with certainty that Montanye knew he was aiding an illegal conspiracy, the evidence did not support a Falcone instruction. 61 Montanye next argues that the district court denied him a fair trial because it prejudiced the jury against him by delivering a conspiracy instruction that stated: 62 [I]t is not necessary that a person agree to play any particular part in carrying out the conspiracy. A person may become a member of a conspiracy even if that person agrees to play only a minor part in the conspiracy, such as driving a car or loading needed equipment, as long as you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person you are considering had an understanding of the unlawful nature of the plan and voluntarily and intentionally joined in it. 63 Instruction No. L, II Joint App. at 439-40. 64 Montanye contends that the instruction's reference to loading needed equipment referred too directly to his conduct, and compelled the jury to convict him. We disagree. The district court may instruct the jury using concrete facts from the case to clarify the law's application. United States v. Feldhacker, 849 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir.1988). 65 Montanye next challenges the district court's instructions regarding his conviction of aiding and abetting in the attempted manufacture of a controlled substance. Montanye argues that the district court should have told the jury that in order to convict him of attempted manufacturing, it must find him guilty of attempting to manufacture a particular controlled substance. However, a defendant need not possess the specific intent to manufacture a particular controlled substance as long as he had the mens rea to violate the controlled substances act. E.g., United States v. Herrero, 893 F.2d 1512, 1535 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 927, 110 S.Ct. 2623, 110 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990). 66 Finally, Montanye argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury on what constitutes a substantial step in an attempt. The district court told the jury that to convict Montanye of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, it must find that Montanye had taken a substantial step towards the manufacture of methamphetamine. The district court instructed the jury: 67 The term substantial step means conduct that is significant in scope as distinguished from some relatively insignificant, insubstantial or trivial action. With respect to defendants Montanye and Sessions, the acquisition of glassware in Idaho may not be considered a substantial step in an attempt to manufacture methamphetamine because any such acquisition occurred outside the Kansas City area and not at the time alleged. 68 Instruction No. T, II Joint App. at 449-50. 69 Montanye contends that this instruction incorrectly defines a substantial step, arguing that such an act must be more than mere preparation. We disagree. A criminal defendant is not entitled to a particularly worded instruction where the instruction given by the trial court adequately covers the substance of the requested instruction. United States v. Wagner, 884 F.2d 1090, 1096 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1088, 110 S.Ct. 1829, 108 L.Ed.2d 958 (1990). No substantial difference exists between conduct that is significant in scope, and conduct that is beyond mere preparation. The instruction proffered by the district court gave Montanye's counsel an adequate opportunity to advance the theory that Montanye did not perform a substantial step toward manufacturing methamphetamine.