Opinion ID: 71257
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Carrying Instruction

Text: 14 Initially, Range argues that the carrying charge was erroneous. 15 The court instructed the jury in relevant part as follows: 16 Now members of the jury, as to Count Three, Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c)(1), makes it a separate crime or offense for anyone to use or carry a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a drug trafficking offense. 17 A defendant can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant committed the felony offense charged in count one and count two; second, that such offense was a drug trafficking offense; and, third, that the defendant knowingly used or carried the firearm described in the indictment while committing such drug trafficking offense. 18 To show use of the firearm the government need not prove that the firearm was fired, brandished, or even displayed during the drug-trafficking offense. However, mere presence of the firearm would not constitute use within the meaning of the statute. Rather, possession of a firearm constitutes use in relation to the drug-trafficking offense if the firearm played a purpose or function in carrying out the drug-trafficking offense. 19 Range contends that the court erred in failing to provide a definition of carry, but he specifically waived that objection at trial. He also contends, however, that the carrying charge was erroneous in omitting an essential element, i.e., that the firearm was carried during and in relation to the commission of the offense. He relies on United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 867, 108 S.Ct. 192, 98 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987), and United States v. Mendoza, 11 F.3d 126 (9th Cir.1993), both holding that failure to instruct on the relational element of section 924(c)(1) is constitutional error. In Mendoza, the court held that the omission was not cured by inclusion of the relational language in the description of the indictment and of the provisions of section 924(c)(1) that the trial court had given the jury. The court said: 20 It was Instruction No. 33 that informed the jury exactly what it must find in order to convict, and that instruction conspicuously omitted any requirement that the gun be used in relation to the drug offense. 21 11 F.3d at 129. 22 A later decision of the Ninth Circuit distinguished Mendoza on the ground that it had not been decided under the plain error rule, the defendant having raised the objection at trial. United States v. Gallegos-Corrales, 37 F.3d 548, 550 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1716, 131 L.Ed.2d 575 (1995). In Gallegos-Corrales, the court declined to find plain error where a supplemental instruction included a statement that the government need only prove that the defendant chose to carry the firearm in relation to that transaction. Id. at 549. 23 The plain error rule applies here because Range raised this issue for the first time on appeal. United States v. Rojas, 502 F.2d 1042, 1045 (5th Cir.1974); United States v. Gerald, 624 F.2d 1291, 1299 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 1369, 67 L.Ed.2d 348 (1981). While the court's instruction on what the jury had to find to convict initially omitted the relational requirement, it included that requirement at the end of the instruction, albeit with reference to use. But the omission of a specific instruction applying the relational element to the carrying prong is plain error only if there is a significant possibility the jury might have acquitted if it had considered the matter. United States v. Steward, 16 F.3d 317, 320 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir.1985)). 24 In Steward, the court held that failure to instruct on the relationship between the firearm and the underlying crime was not plain error where the requirement was spelled out fully elsewhere in the instructions, and there [was] little likelihood of acquittal because the defendant was carrying a loaded ... pistol in his pants while participating in a drug transaction. Id. at 320-21. Here, as in Steward, the relational element was stated elsewhere in the instructions and, in view of the undisputed evidence that Range knowingly carried the firearm under the floormat of the car in which he brought the money to the transaction, there is little likelihood that the instructional error misled the jury into convicting where it might otherwise have acquitted.