Opinion ID: 172164
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial and Jury Instructions

Text: Prior to trial, Mr. Collamore sought a jury instruction for the lesser included offense of simple possession of methamphetamine for Counts 2, 3, and 4. The district court denied the use of the lesser included offense instruction on Counts 2 and 3, regarding Mr. Collamore’s distribution of methamphetamine charges, stating that the lesser included offense instruction was not appropriate with respect -15- to those distribution counts, but allowed the instruction with regard to Count 4 for the charge of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The lesser included offense instruction advised the jury that if it unanimously found the defendant not guilty of Count 4, or, if it was unable to agree on Mr. Collamore’s guilt with respect to that offense, then it must determine if he was guilty or not guilty of the lesser included offense of simple possession of methamphetamine, requiring the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly and intentionally possessed methamphetamine on or about August 2, 2007. Unlike the jury instruction for Count 4 for possession with intent to distribute, it did not require the government to prove Mr. Collamore intended to distribute the methamphetamine he possessed. At trial, the government presented the testimony of Investigator Gaylord, Agent Hill, Mr. Hellyer, Mr. Klish, and several others. Mr. Collamore did not testify. The jury found Mr. Collamore guilty on all counts, including Count 4 for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, so the jury did not apply the simple possession instruction. On appeal, Mr. Collamore contends the district court erred in not instructing the jury as to the lesser included simple possession instruction with respect to Counts 2 and 3 regarding his distribution of methamphetamine charges. While he -16- concedes this court’s “authority provides that simple possession of a controlled substance is not a lesser included offense of distribution of a controlled substance,” he claims our prior precedent should not apply because he was a “conduit for the buyer and seller” and that he “was merely helping a friend.” Apt. Br. at 18, 28. We review de novo whether the offense on which the instruction is sought is a lesser included offense for the crime charged, but we review a district court’s determination of whether the evidence justifies the inclusion of a lesser included offense instruction for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Humphrey, 208 F.3d 1190, 1206 (10 th Cir. 2000). This court has clearly held a distinct difference exists between distribution and possession charges so that “simple possession is not a lesser included offense of [a] distribution [charge] ....” United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1297 (10 th Cir.), cert. granted and judgment vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033 (2000). In this case, our holding in Jackson applies, so that Mr. Collamore’s argument is precluded by this circuit’s precedent as a matter of law. Moreover, overwhelming, uncontradicted evidence established Mr. Collamore distributed methamphetamine to Investigator Gaylord on January 11, 2007, in conjunction with Count 2; and again on March 14, 2007, in conjunction with Count 3. Thus, a -17- lesser included offense instruction regarding simple possession would have been inapplicable under the circumstances presented. In addition, nothing in the record supports Mr. Collamore’s argument he acted merely as a conduit for a buyer and seller and was helping a friend; nor has he presented any meaningful legal argument as to why such a set of circumstances would change our application of Jackson to his case. For these reasons, we conclude the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury as to the lesser included offense of simple possession on Counts 2 and 3.