Court Opinion

ID: 2965999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:29.060934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:51.574370
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 99-1125

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                          DAVID CARVER,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

           [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     David W. Bate on brief for appellant.
     Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Margaret D.
McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

August 6, 1999

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the record and
  briefs, and even assuming that the question were properly
  before us, we conclude that the district court did not commit
  reversible error in refusing defendant's requests for
  instruction and argument on his accomplice witness theory.  As
  the district court explained, the theory was not supported by
  sufficient evidence of the witnesses' complicity in the
  specific offense.  See United States v. Olmstead, 832 F.2d 642,
  647-48 (1st Cir. 1987).  Moreover, considering the whole of the
  instructions and the evidence of defendant's possession of the
  pistol, in any event defendant was not prejudiced by the
  refused instruction and argument.  See id.
            We will not override the jury's choice to credit at
  least in part the government's witnesses, and so we reject
  defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.  See
  United States v. Lara, ___ F.3d ___, ___ No. 97-2215, slip op.
  at 40-41 (1st Cir. June 30, 1999) [1999 WL 431140, at *18].
            Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.