Court Opinion

ID: 9478896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:01:53.766326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:41.245835
License: Public Domain

RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in all but part II of the majority opinion.
Dotson was charged with using a telephone to facilitate the distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. However, she was not charged with any substantive or conspiracy offenses involving possession or distribution of cocaine. Since the jury would not have any cocaine offenses before them for consideration, Dotson asked for a specific instruction to the effect that the jury must find that the “underlying offense,” i.e., possession with intent to distribute or distribution of cocaine must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence even though not separately charged.1 As authority for this request, defendant cited United States v. Rey, 641 F.2d 222, 224, n. 6 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 861, 102 S.Ct. 318, 70 L.Ed.2d 160 (1981). The district court declined to give the requested instruction reasoning that it would be confusing to the jury. Since the “facilitation” counts had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the court was concerned that interjecting the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” in the elements of the offense would confuse the jury to the detriment of the defendant. The court then proceeded to give the usual instruction setting forth the elements that must be proved for a conviction under section 843(b).2
Since the use of a telephone by those engaged in narcotics transactions is very common, there are a considerable number of cases construing section 843(b). Several of these address the issue of the standard of proof required for the so-called underlying offense. Dotson places primary reliance on Rey, where the court stated:
The elements of proof for the § 843(b) facilitation count are (1) knowing or intentional (2) use of a telephone (3) to facilitate the commission of an offense. It is this third element that is the focus of Rey’s insufficiency challenge. Whatever underlying offense is charged must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, even though it is not separately charged.
641 F.2d at 224, n. 6. Rey is cited with approval for this proposition in United *1327States v. Mims, 812 F.2d 1068, 1077 (8th Cir.1987), and United States v. Russo, 796 F.2d 1443, 1463 (11th Cir.1986). The United States Supreme Court has never ruled squarely on this issue but did state in a footnote in United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 60 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 471, 474 n. 4, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984):3
The lower courts seem to agree that the Government must prove, as an element of a § 843(b) offense, the commission of the felony that the accused is charged with facilitating. See United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1319 (CA11), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 934 [103 S.Ct. 2101, 77 L.Ed.2d 308] (1983); United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1342-1344 (CA10 1979).
The government answers Dotson by citing to a number of cases in which an instruction virtually identical to the one given here was approved. See, e.g., United States v. Jefferson, 714 F.2d 689, 698 (7th Cir.1983).
In analyzing the cases cited by both parties, I find no conflict but, rather, factual differences and differences in the way the case came before the appellate court.4 The conclusion I draw from the reported cases is that the underlying offense must have been committed by the defendant or someone else,5 and that the telephone call must have been made by the defendant while in the process of committing the offense or to facilitate its commission either at another time or by another person or both. It seems to me that this is exactly what Judge Edgar instructed the jury. I would decline to decide in the context of this case whether the underlying offense need be proved by a preponderance or some higher standard because, as this jury was instructed, all of the elements had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, defendant cannot complain that the jury was not told they could find proof to a lesser standard.
I think the real issue being raised by defendant here is whether each specific telephone call resulted in the consummation of a substantive offense. Although defendant in her reply brief vigorously disclaims that she is raising a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the “facilitation” counts, it appears that that is really the nub of her complaint. Although, as stated earlier, defendant was not charged with any substantive cocaine offenses, the thrust of the government’s case on the “facilitation” counts was that Dotson was using the telephone to further an ongoing and continuous cocaine business. Each individual call may not have resulted in a sale or delivery, but that matters not.6 It is clear from the evidence presented by the government that Dotson was a cocaine dealer and the telephone was one way she serviced her customers. This “service” may have consisted on occasion of little more than telling a customer not to come by because no product was available. Nonetheless, such telephone usage clearly facilitated her cocaine business and was within the purview of the statute’s proscriptions.
The majority indicates that the jury instruction given by the court would pass muster if it did not contain the language “or to facilitate the commission of the offense....” Surely this cannot be so, for the alleged offending language is a direct quote from the statute.7 If the court had *1328omitted the “facilitating” language, it would have erroneously told the jury that the telephone usage by Dotson must have been directly connected to “committing” the underlying offense. This would have been a more stringent requirement than imposed by the statute.
The court’s real concern seems to be expressed as a belief that “a rational juror easily could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, that Dotson used her telephone ‘to facilitate the commission’ of a drug offense without finding that the offense actually was committed.” I do not understand how one can “facilitate” the commission of an act that does not occur. Perhaps an argument could be constructed that “facilitate” or “commission” should be further defined, but that is not an issue before us here.
The majority also overlooks the trial judge’s very real concern for the danger inherent in inserting a “preponderance standard” in an instruction that deals with proof of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the majority also adopts the minority view that “reasonable doubt” is the correct standard of proof, this makes the concern of the trial judge even more real.
In further support of my contention that this ease is not the proper vehicle for addressing the “reasonable doubt” versus “preponderance” issue, I would emphasize that any reasonable view of the evidence here would cause one to conclude that the underlying offenses were committed beyond a reasonable doubt. We are not dealing with a borderline case. As pointed out earlier, the defendant’s proposed instruction erroneously sought to convey to the jury that they must find a separate offense was committed in connection with each telephone count. This is neither a correct statement of the law nor the government’s theory of prosecution in this case. In essence, the government proved that Dotson was running a continuing drug business and that she was using the telephone to facilitate that business. The government did not show, nor was it required to show, that each use of the telephone was to facilitate a specific discrete drug offense.
I would affirm the 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) convictions.

. The complete instruction requested by defendant reads as follows:
The elements of proof for the telphone facilitation Counts II-X are the knowing or intentional use of the telephone to facilitate the commission of an offense; therefore, whatever underlying offense is charged must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence even though it is not separately charged. In other words, if you find that the Government has not proved in each of the telephone Counts II-X that the defendants knowingly or intentionally manufactured, distributed, or dispensed, or possessed with the intention to manufacture, distribute, or dispense cocaine, then you must find that the defendant is not guilty of the Counts as charged.

. The full text of the court’s § 843(b) instruction is as follows:
Section 843(b) of Title 21 of the United States Code makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to knowingly use a communication facility in the process of committing or facilitating the commission of unlawful acts, in this case, the unlawful distribtution of and the possession with intent to distribute Cocaine hydrochloride, a Schedule 2 controlled substance, in violation of Section 841(a)(1) of Title 21 of the United States Code.
The defendant can be found guilty of the offense of unlawful use of a communication facility as charged in Counts 2 through 10 only if all of the following elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
One, That the defendant used a communication facility as charged;
Two, That the defendant used the communication facility while in the process of committing, or to facilitate the commission of, the offense of unlawful distribution of and possession with intent to distribute Cocaine hydrochloride, a Schedule 2 controlled substance, and
Three, That the defendant acted knowingly and willfully.

. This footnote must be read with care as no court has required the government to prove that the defendant charged with the "facilitating" offense must be the one that committed the substantive offense.

. For example, Rey came up as an interlocutory appeal and the court never resolved the issue for which defendant cites the case.

. The defendant’s requested instruction was obviously erroneous in that it requested the jury be instructed that the underlying offense must be committed by the defendant.

. This highlights another deficiency in the instruction offered by the defendant. The requested instruction informs the jury that they must find a substantive offense to have been committed in connection with each of the telephone calls.

. 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) reads as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to use any communication facility in committing or in causing or facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituting a felony under any provision of this subchapter *1328or subchapter II of this chapter. Each separate use of a communication facility shall be a separate offense under this subsection. For purposes of this subsection, the term “communication facility” means any and all public and private instrumentalities used or useful in the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds of all kinds and includes mail, telephone, wire, radio, and all other means of communication.