Opinion ID: 4527830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction Request

Text: Vaquiz contends that it was error not to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession because there was sufficient record evidence to support a conviction for possession as well as possession with intent to deliver, and thus this failure to instruct unfairly deprived him of his primary defensive theory—that he possessed the heroin but never meant to distribute it. We review a district court’s refusal to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Petersen, 622 F.3d 196, 207 n.7 (3d Cir. 2010). 3 To the extent Vaquiz challenges the District Court’s reliance on Detective Martin’s testimony, which contained hearsay based on Detective Schultz’s statements, a district court may rely on hearsay evidence during a suppression hearing. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 679 (1980) (“At a suppression hearing, the court may rely on hearsay and other evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial.”). To the extent Vaquiz challenges the credibility of Detective Schultz, there was nothing to indicate to the District Court that Schultz was anything but credible in this case. 7 Simple possession of a controlled substance, as defined by 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), is a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to distribute the same controlled substance. United States v. Lacy, 446 F.3d 448, 454 (3d Cir. 2006). Importantly, “[a] jury instruction must contain a lesser-included offense only if the evidence adduced at trial could support a guilty verdict on either charge.” Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Knight, 989 F.2d 619, 632 (3d Cir. 1993). Thus, Vaquiz was entitled to a simple possession charge only if a rational jury could find that he did not intend to distribute the heroin. Cf. id. (“Therefore, Knight was entitled to an involuntary manslaughter charge only if a jury rationally could find that he was not committing a felony at the time the gun discharged.”). Despite his personal-use theory, the trial record shows insufficient evidence to support a conviction for mere simple possession under 21 U.S.C § 844(a). Both J.F. and T.L testified that Vaquiz was not a heroin user, that he regularly sold heroin, and that he was the only one in possession of the heroin recovered from the January 29 controlled buy. The record shows that the amount of heroin recovered from Vaquiz (280 bags on his person and 28 bags next to where he was sitting), and the way it was packaged (in small bags for individual resale), are consistent with “strict[] distribution” and “drug dealer quantity,” not “personal consumption.” Supp. App. 513–15, 528–29. The only evidence that Vaquiz may have been a user came from Detective Martin’s prior inconsistent statement at the suppression hearing that Vaquiz was a “user” of heroin. But at trial Martin denied any personal knowledge that Vaquiz was a user and stated that his previous statement was a “mistake.” Supp. App. 448–49. Moreover, even under his own 8 theory, Vaquiz’s possession of the heroin and his intent to distribute it to the others would defeat his argument for a simple possession instruction. Thus the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vaquiz’s request for the lesser-included-offense instruction.