Opinion ID: 1974323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The lesser included offense instruction

Text: Minor contends that the trial court, in charging the jury on the count alleging distribution of heroin, should also have given an instruction on the lesser included offense of possession. His theory seems to be, at least in part, that if he is deemed to be an agent of the buyer rather than an agent of the seller (a matter which we address in part B, infra ), then he is guilty only of aiding and abetting simple possession  i.e., the possession of the buyerand not aiding and abetting the distribution of the seller. Our concurring colleague suggests that such an instruction is precluded as a matter of law because possession can never be a lesser included offense of distribution.... Post at 1188. We deem it sufficient to observe, however, that before the jury could find, on this record, that Minor was guilty of possession but not distribution, it would have to engage in the sort of bizarre reconstruction of the facts which we have repeatedly disapproved. Anderson v. United States, 490 A.2d 1127, 1130 (D.C. 1985); accord, e.g., Lampkins v. United States, 515 A.2d 428, 432-433 (D.C.1986). We hold accordingly that there was not a sufficient evidentiary basis for the lesser charge, Rease v. United States, 403 A.2d 322, 328 (D.C.1979) (citations omitted), and do not reach the issues raised in the concurring opinion.