Court Opinion

ID: 9947387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 19:01:18.661478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:25.810757
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30569           Document: 74-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/04/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                FILED
                                                                          March 4, 2024
                                   No. 23-30569                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                 ____________

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Aaron Wade Knight,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 5:22-CR-151-1
                  ______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Aaron Wade Knight was convicted by a jury of two counts of interstate
transmission of extortionate communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 875(c). He was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and three years
of supervised release on each count, to run concurrently.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30569        Document: 74-1      Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                 No. 23-30569

       On appeal, Knight argues that the jury instructions were plainly
erroneous based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Counterman v. Colorado,
600 U.S. 66 (2023), which was decided after his conviction. He contends
that under Counterman, the jury should have been instructed that the
Government must prove that Knight acted recklessly with respect to the
threatening nature of his communication.
       The Government claims that Knight invited the error he now argues
on appeal because defense counsel proposed the instructions ultimately given
to the jury. Invited error occurs when the defendant or his counsel induces
the error, and an invited error is reviewed only for manifest injustice. United
States v. Green, 272 F.3d 748, 754 (5th Cir. 2001). Although the district court
provided defense counsel with the opportunity to brief any argument for
different or additional jury instructions, counsel declined to do so.
Moreover, the proposed jury instruction submitted by defense counsel was
the instruction used by the court during trial. Thus, Knight arguably invited
the alleged jury instruction error and review should be limited to manifest
injustice. See Green, 272 F.3d at 754. Regardless, Knight loses under the
more generous standard of plain error, as discussed below.
       Under plain error review, Knight must show a clear or obvious error
that affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Capistrano, 74 F.4th
756, 769 (5th Cir. 2023). When reviewing a jury instruction, this court
considers the jury charge as a whole and will reverse only if the charge leaves
it “with the substantial and ineradicable doubt whether the jury has been
properly guided in its deliberations.” Id. at 769-70 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). To amount to plain error, Knight must show that the
error in the instruction meant the difference between his conviction and
acquittal. See id. at 769-72.

                                      2
Case: 23-30569        Document: 74-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                 No. 23-30569

       In United States v. Elonis, 575 U.S. 723, 740 (2015), the Supreme Court
held that a negligence standard was insufficient to support a conviction under
§ 875(c), and it stated that there was no dispute that the mental state
requirement in § 875(c) “is satisfied if the defendant transmits a
communication for the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that
the communication will be viewed as a threat.” It declined to address
whether recklessness would suffice for a conviction under that statute. Id. at
725, 740-41. In Counterman, 600 U.S. at 73, 82, the Supreme Court held,
citing to Elonis throughout the opinion, that the First Amendment requires
proof of a defendant’s subjective mindset in “true-threats cases,” and it
established a minimum constitutional mens rea of recklessness that the
Government must prove to convict a criminal defendant for use of
threatening speech.
       When reviewing a jury instruction, this court considers the jury charge
as a whole and will reverse only if the charge leaves it “with the substantial
and ineradicable doubt whether the jury has been properly guided in its
deliberations.” Capistrano, 74 F.4th at 769 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). A district court does not err by giving a charge that tracks
this court’s pattern instructions and is a correct statement of the law. See
United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 354 (5th Cir. 2009). The jury in this
case was instructed from the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions that the
Government needed to prove that Knight “knowingly” communicated a
threat. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal) § 2.39 (2019).
The pattern jury instruction at issue specifically references the decision in
Elonis regarding the mens rea necessary for a conviction. Id. The standard
articulated in Elonis goes beyond the recklessness requirement. Accordingly,
because the jury instructions were the pattern jury instructions and represent
a correct statement of law, Knight cannot show that the district court

                                       3
Case: 23-30569       Document: 74-1      Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                No. 23-30569

committed obvious or clear error. See Capistrano, 74 F.4th at 769; Whitfield,
590 F.3d at 354.
       The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Knight’s motion for
limited remand under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 is
DENIED.

                                     4