Court Opinion

ID: 1002236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:07:46.863232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:53.179746
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 00-4161

SCOTT ALLEN SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-99-49)

Submitted: July 25, 2000

Decided: August 7, 2000

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter
C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Scott Allen Smith appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distrib-
ute cocaine and cocaine base, and possession of cocaine base with the
intent to distribute. Smith raises two issues on appeal: (1) that the dis-
trict court erred in not dismissing the entire jury panel following one
juror's statement that Smith "wouldn't be this far if he hadn't done
something;" and (2) that the district court erred in giving a flight
instruction. We affirm.

A trial court's findings of juror impartiality may"be overturned
only for manifest error." Mu'Min v. Virginia , 500 U.S. 415, 428
(1991) (finding no error in trial judge's refusal to question prospective
jurors about specific contents of news reports they had observed)
(internal quotations omitted). Thus, a decision on whether to strike an
entire jury panel is reviewed for a manifest abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Trujillio, 146 F.3d 838, 842 (11th Cir. 1998).
Because the record demonstrates that the district court carefully
explained the presumption of innocence to the jury three times, and
specifically asked if any jurors felt influenced by the one prospective
juror's statements, to which it received a negative response, we find
that the district court did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion
in denying Smith's motion to strike the entire jury panel.

Addressing the flight instruction, this court reviews a district
court's decision to deliver a flight instruction for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1107 (4th Cir. 1993). A
flight instruction is appropriate when "[t]he chain of inferences lead-
ing from evidence of flight to consciousness of guilt . . . [leads] to
consciousness of guilt of the crime charged." United States v. Porter,
821 F.2d 968, 976 (4th Cir. 1987). Reviewing the facts of Smith's
case under this standard, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court's decision to instruct the jury on flight.

Accordingly, we affirm Smith's conviction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2