Opinion ID: 743108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rejection of Defendant's Jury Instructions

Text: 24 Finally, Harvey challenges the District Court's refusal to give two jury instructions that he proposed. Although Harvey's counsel objected to this refusal, he did not stat[e] distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection, which Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30 requires. We will therefore review the District Court's decision only for plain error. See United States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928, 940 (7th Cir.1991); United States v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1009-10 (7th Cir.1978). Not only, however, do we fail to find plain error; we fail to find any error at all. 25 One of Harvey's rejected instructions would have required the Government to prove, in effect, that Harvey was continuously present at the campsite throughout the period alleged in the indictment. We know of no such requirement for a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and Harvey presents no legal authority to indicate otherwise. The other instruction would have asked the jury four special questions regarding whether the jury thought Harvey cultivated the marijuana, harvested the marijuana, or did both. Such distinctions are irrelevant, however, because 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) prohibits the manufacture of marijuana, which 21 U.S.C. § 802(15) defines to include the production of marijuana, which 21 U.S.C. § 802(22) defines to include the planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of marijuana. The instructions actually given to the jury were reasonably based on these provisions and certainly cannot be considered plain error. 26 The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.