Opinion ID: 580722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Properly Instruct the Jury on the Law of Attempt

Text: 33 Stone and Sienhausen's next contention is that the district court's instruction to the jury on the offense of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine was inadequate because it failed to require that they have taken a substantial step toward commission of the offense. The court instructed the jury that [t]o attempt to commit an offense means merely to willfully do some act in an effort to bring about or accomplish something the law forbids. The defendants did not object to the instruction below, so we will reverse only if the instruction constituted plain error, i.e., if considering the entire charge and evidence presented against the defendant, there is a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice. United States v. Sellers, 926 F.2d 410, 417 (5th Cir.1991). 34 Stone and Sienhausen are correct that the instruction at least inadequately described the second element of the offense as set forth in Mandujano (see Part V, supra ). When a jury instruction omits or significantly misstates an essential element of an offense, the error may be severe enough to meet the plain-error standard. See, e.g., United States v. Flitcraft, 803 F.2d 184, 186-87 (5th Cir.1986). Recently, however, this Court confronted a very similar instruction to the present one and concluded that, in light of the evidence in the case, it did not rise to the level of plain error. See United States v. Contreras, 950 F.2d 232, 239-40 (5th Cir.1991), petition for cert. filed (3-20-92). We find the same to be true here. Although the defect in the instruction given here may even have been, because of the inclusion of the word merely, 4 slightly greater than the one at issue in Contreras, we are not persuaded that under the circumstances of this case--where the contest as argued below was more whether the plan entertained by the defendants was the crime charged in the indictment than whether they took a substantial step toward effectuation of their plan--it could have meant the difference between acquittal and conviction. Id. at 240. 5 Also weighing against a finding that the defective instruction could have resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice for these defendants is the fact that they received identical concurrent sentences on the conspiracy charges; the imposition of the additional $50 special assessments were the only consequence of the convictions for attempt. 35