Opinion ID: 711624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction for Cocaine

Text: 5 At the close of the trial, the district court instructed the jury that, in order to convict Gould, it must find (among other things) that he possessed cocaine base with the intent to distribute it. Gould requested an alternative instruction that would allow the jury to convict him of possession of cocaine rather than cocaine base. The district court denied this request. Gould seeks a new trial in which the jury will be allowed to determine the nature of the drug that he distributed. 6 Gould was convicted under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a), which makes it illegal to possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). The nature of the controlled substance (e.g., cocaine or cocaine base), like the amount of the substance involved, is not a jury question but rather is determined by the court at sentencing. See United States v. Trujillo, 959 F.2d 1377, 1383 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 277 (1992). Moreover, even if the type of drug involved is a question within the province of the jury, there was no evidence presented that would support an instruction for cocaine. A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction unless it is supported by the evidence. United States v. Boyles, 57 F.3d 535, 543-44 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Curley, 55 F.3d 254, 257 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 190 (1995). All of the evidence presented at trial indicated that Gould possessed crack cocaine. Thus, the only appropriate instruction was one for cocaine base. 7 In conclusion, the sentencing provisions for crack and powder cocaine are not ambiguous, and Gould was not entitled to a jury instruction for possession of cocaine. Gould's conviction and sentence are 8 AFFIRMED.