Opinion ID: 197726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Instruction on Customs Waters

Text: 14 The statute under which the defendants were convicted, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903, makes it unlawful for any person ... on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ... to knowingly or intentionally ... possess with intent to ... distribute ... a controlled substance. 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(a) (West Supp.1997). A vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, inter alia, when it is located within the customs waters of the United States. Id. § 1903(c)(1)(D). The defendants allege that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the meaning of the phrase within the customs waters of the United States, a substantive element of the offense for which they were convicted. The defendants contend that, because the term has a technical meaning not within the expertise of the jury, the judge's failure to define it meant that the government was not required to prove this element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 15 Because the defendants failed to object to the trial court's instruction, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486, 1495 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Andjar, 49 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir.1995). 1 The failure to give an instruction may be noticed as plain error when: (1) it is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious; and (3) the error affected the substantial rights of the defendants. See Johnson v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1547, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776-78, 123 L.Ed.2d 508; Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). When plain error is found, a reviewing court has discretion to correct it only when the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 736, 113 S.Ct. at 1779 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)); see Johnson, --- U.S. at ----, 117 S.Ct. at 1550. We thus review the context of the charge as a whole to determine if it contains an error that threatens to 'undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial.'  Fulmer, 108 F.3d at 1495 (quoting United States v. Josleyn, 99 F.3d 1182, 1197 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied sub nom. Billmyer v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 959, 136 L.Ed.2d 845 (1997)). 16 The statute under which the defendants were convicted, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903, is silent as to the definition of the term customs waters. See 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(b)-(c) (West Supp.1997). Other statutes make clear, however, that the customs waters of the United States extend for four leagues, or twelve miles, from United States territory unless another distance has been established by treaty. See 19 U.S.C.A. § 1401(j) (West 1980). 2 In this case, the judge instructed the jury that one element of the offense was that the vessel be within the customs waters of the United States but he failed to provide the jury with a further definition of the term. 3 17 Despite the omission of a definition of the element from the jury instructions, the jury was not left completely without guidance on the issue. The government introduced unrebutted testimony by Alpers as to both what constituted customs waters and the location of the vessel within customs waters. At trial, Alpers testified that the vessel was first picked up on FLIR within five miles of United States territory. He also testified that the customs waters of the United States extend for twelve miles from the territory of the United States. 4 Alpers' testimony did not, however, mention that the twelve-mile limit can be modified by treaty. 18 Given this testimony, the defendants have failed to meet their burden to show that the omitted instruction affected their substantial rights. We agree with the defendants that the term customs waters of the United States is outside the experience of lay jurors, and that in the usual case the district court must give at least an instruction concerning the ordinary definition of that term, i.e., that the defendants' vessel must have been within four leagues or twelve nautical miles of the nearest land territory of the United States. However, because the evidence was uncontroverted that the defendants' vessel was well within this limit, we cannot see how this omission could have affected their substantial rights, as required under Olano. 19 The defendants did not argue that the twelve-mile limit was inapplicable because their vessel was covered by a treaty that contracted the ordinary limit. In fact, such treaties ordinarily expand the twelve-mile limit. See, e.g., United States v. Doe, 860 F.2d 488, 490 (1st Cir.1988). We do not decide under what circumstances a defendant is entitled upon proper request to an instruction concerning the treaty exception to the twelve-mile limit. In this case, however, it is clear that such an omission cannot, at the very least, rise to the level of plain error. Given the failure of the defense to suggest that the exception was at all relevant, the omission is not plain error; certainly it did not seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Johnson v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1550, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 736, 113 S.Ct. at 1779) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 20