Opinion ID: 658330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Distribution Within 1000 Feet of a School

Text: 106 At trial, Little requested that the following jury instruction be given in relation to the counts charging distribution within 1000 feet of a school: 107 To establish a defendant's guilt to Counts Two or Five you must find more than that the defendant possessed the narcotics within 1,000 feet of a school intending to distribute them. You also must find that the defendant's distribution was intended to occur within 1,000 feet of a school. 108 (Emphasis added.) The court instead instructed the jury that the [t]he government need not prove that the defendant intended to distribute the cocaine or base within a thousand feet of the school. On appeal, Little argues that this instruction was erroneous. 109 Under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 860 (formerly Sec. 845a), a district court may double the penalty for anyone found to have distributed cocaine in violation of section 841(a), where that person sold the cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. This court has interpreted this statute as not incorporating any mens rea requirement, United States v. Cross, 900 F.2d 66, 68-69 (6th Cir.1990); thus, the jury did not need to find an intent on Little's part to deliver drugs within 1000 feet of the school. Therefore, the instruction that Little requested was an incorrect statement of the law of this circuit, while the instruction actually given by the district court did accurately state the law. See Williams, 952 F.2d at 1512. There was therefore no error in the district court's refusal to instruct the jury as Little requested.