Opinion ID: 4678698
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instruction Regarding “On or About”

Text: Next, Naidoo argues that the district court erred in responding to a jury question regarding the dates specified in Count Two of the superseding indictment. Count Two charged Naidoo with possession of the Lexar SD card containing child pornography “on or about July 10, 2017.” In his closing argument, Naidoo’s counsel argued that the jury should acquit Naidoo on 12 Case: 20-60730 Document: 00515827551 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/19/2021 No. 20-60730 this count because the evidence showed that Naidoo was hundreds of miles away from the SD card on July 10. Naidoo emphasizes that this argument prompted the Government to respond in its rebuttal argument by citing evidence that Naidoo used the device as early as December 2015. The jury subsequently sent a note to the court asking: “Are we considering the verdict based on the dates on the indictment?” The court instructed the jury, over the objection of defense counsel, on the meaning of the phrase “on or about” in the superseding indictment, explaining that “[t]he government does not have to prove that the crime was committed on that exact date, so long as the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crimes on a date reasonably near the date stated in the indictment.” Now, Naidoo claims that his trial counsel “exposed a fatal flaw in . . . count two,” the flaw was “recognized by the jury,” and the court’s instruction “resurrected the count.” We disagree. A district court enjoys “wide latitude in deciding how to respond to questions from a jury.” United States v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522, 544 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Cantu, 185 F.3d 298, 305 (5th Cir. 1999)). “Supplemental instructions must be ‘reasonably responsive’ and ‘allow[] the jury to understand the issue presented to it.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840, 864 (5th Cir. 1998)). Naidoo’s argument is apparently premised on the mistaken impression that his trial counsel exposed a flaw in the Government’s case by misstating the terms of the superseding indictment. While counsel stated that Naidoo was charged with possession of the Lexar SD card “on July 10, 2017,” the indictment actually charged him with possession “on or about July 10, 2017.” Far from fixing a mistake committed by the Government in drafting the superseding indictment, the district court’s instruction merely explained the meaning of “on or about.” See Pattern Jury Instr. 5th Cir. 1.19 (2019) (“On or about”); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(c) (“The court may instruct the jury before or 13 Case: 20-60730 Document: 00515827551 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/19/2021 No. 20-60730 after the arguments are completed, or at both times.”). Indeed, the district court made clear that it was correcting its own mistake in not previously including the instruction. The instruction was thus “reasonably responsive” to the jury’s question regarding the significance of the dates in the superseding indictment, and we find no error. Hale, 685 F.3d at 544.