Opinion ID: 369698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: COUNT 2's SUPPORT IN THE VERDICT

Text: 75 Appellant West contends that Count 2 is not supported by the verdict because the trial court's charge did not require the jury to find that  quantities of methaqualone were manufactured. 20 76 We do not agree with Appellant West's contention. The term  quantities is not an essential element of the offense charged under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), and, therefore, it was surplusage and may be disregarded. Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 47 S.Ct. 531, 71 L.Ed. 793 (1927); United States v. Greene, 497 F.2d 1068 (7 Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 909, 95 S.Ct. 829, 42 L.Ed.2d 839 (1975). Such surplusage in an indictment need not be proved. United States v. Greene,supra; United States v. Trexler, 474 F.2d 369 (5 Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, 412 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 2759, 37 L.Ed.2d 157 (1973); Castle v. United States, 287 F.2d 657 (5 Cir. 1961). All of the essential elements of the offense were charged in the indictment in addition to the unnecessary term quantities. The jury was properly charged on the elements of the offense, and, they found that in reaching their verdict, all necessary elements were present. Since quantities was not an essential element of the offense and did not have to be proved, the jury was not required to make a finding that quantities of methaqualone were manufactured by Appellants. Accordingly, we hold that Appellant West's conviction under Count 2 is supported by the jury's verdict. 77