Opinion ID: 659744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Molina's Request for Jury instructions on Overt Action

Text: Requirement for a Conspiracy Conviction 23 Defendant Molina contends that the district court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that a conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846 requires proof of an overt act. The government concedes that the district court did not instruct the jury on the overt act requirement, but contends that this refusal constitutes harmless error. 24 We review de novo whether the district court's instructions to the jury misstated the elements of a statutory crime, where, as here, the moving party raised an appropriate objection in prior proceedings. United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546, 554 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 278-79 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Mann, 811 F.2d 495, 496-97 (9th Cir.1987). 25 When the predicate facts relied upon in the instruction, or other facts necessarily found by the jury, are so closely related to the ultimate fact to be presumed that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding that ultimate fact, making those findings is functionally equivalent to finding the element required to be presumed. United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546, 554 (9th Cir.1992) (alteration in original). 26 Similar to the defendant in Garza, the jury in the instant case found defendant Molina guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the substantive offense, here, of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. 27 Thus, the district court's failure to instruct the jury that a conspiracy conviction requires proof of an overt act was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 28