Opinion ID: 665582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Variance Between Proof and Indictment

Text: 49 Because count I of the indictment is vague, it permitted such a wide range of proof that a variance would be difficult to detect. Nevertheless, even absent a difference between pleading and proof, the specificity of an indictment is relevant in assessing the need for a specific unanimity instruction. See Anguiano, 873 F.2d at 1319 (specific unanimity instruction may be required in cases where the indictment is sufficiently broad and ambiguous so as to present a danger of jury confusion). 50 Here, for example, the indictment is unclear whether the twenty pound quantity represents a specific instance of possession or the total amount involved during the course of several possessions. This flaw is reflected in the district court's troubling remarks that all of Lee's drug possessions during 1990 amounted to a single act. 5 51 Nevertheless, the parties generally assume that count I adequately charges Lee with one instance of possession. Consequently, the charged amount of methamphetamine is especially important--not because it is an element of the offense, but because it provides virtually the only description of the crime charged in count I. Besides stating quantity, the indictment specifies only 1990 as the period during which the alleged possession took place and the District of Hawaii as the place where the possession occurred. 6 52 Once the district court made clear to the jury that the twenty pound allegation was virtually irrelevant, each juror was free to look about at the numerous transactions and to choose almost any one of them for purposes of count I. The jury had absolutely no reason to focus on any one transaction because, in view of the district court's instructions, count I no longer identified a particular possession. So long as a deal occurred in 1990 in Hawaii, it would be fair game. With so many sales to chose from, it would be remarkable if every juror happened to agree to a specific set of facts in convicting Lee on count I.