Opinion ID: 3063773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Proximity to contraband jury instruction

Text: “We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion.” Trujillo, 146 F.3d at 846. A district court’s refusal to give a requested instruction is reversible error if (1) the requested instruction was a correct statement of the law, (2) its subject matter was not substantially covered by other instructions, and (3) its subject matter dealt with an issue in the trial court that was so important that failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant's ability to defend himself. United States v. Carrasco, 381 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). “Even if a requested jury instruction is proper, the trial court has some discretion in framing the instruction. If the charge to the jury adequately and correctly covers the substance of the requested instruction, there is no reversible error.” United States v. Lively, 803 F.2d 1124, 1128 (11th Cir. 1986). In United States v. Gloria, 494 F.2d 477, 483 (5th Cir. 1974), the defendant requested a charge that proximity to marijuana did not constitute possession of marijuana, and 8 we determined that the district court’s constructive possession charge was sufficient to preclude a conviction on the defendant’s mere proximity to the marijuana. Here, the district court’s constructive possession charge “substantially covered” the “mere proximity” charge that Brye requested, and it precluded his conviction based on his mere proximity to the contraband. Accordingly, Brye cannot establish that the court’s refusal to give the requested instruction was reversible error.