United States v. Bibb

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Bibb

336 F. App'x 364

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 2009

Docket08-4087

StatusUnpublished

This text of 336 F. App'x 364 (United States v. Bibb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bibb, 336 F. App'x 364 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Troy Lamont Bibb of assaulting fellow-inmate Christopher Ray Klingenstein with a shank * with the intent to do bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2006), and possession of a prohibited object, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (b)(3) (2006). Bibb appeals his conviction, challenging the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on his theory of self defense. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion “[t]he decision to give or not to give a jury instruction.” United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 186 (4th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court’s refusal to grant a requested jury instruction is reversible error only if the proffered instruction “(1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, that failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his defense.” United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463, 477-78 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have held that “a district court should give the instruction that a criminal defendant requests as to any defense as long as the instruction ... has an evidentiary foundation[ ] and ... accurately states the law applicable to the charged offense.” United States v. Stotts, 113 F.3d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1997).

With these standards in mind, we have carefully reviewed the record on appeal. We conclude that the district court properly found that there was no evidence in the trial testimony to support the self-defense instruction. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to instruct the jury on Bibb’s theory of self defense.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *366 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

*

A shank is a sharpened instrument used as a weapon in prison.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Troy Lamont Bibb of assaulting fellow-inmate Christopher Ray Klingenstein with a shank * with the intent to do bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2006), and possession of a prohibited object, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (b)(3) (2006). Bibb appeals his conviction, challenging the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on his theory of self defense. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion “[t]he decision to give or not to give a jury instruction.” United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 186 (4th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court’s refusal to grant a requested jury instruction is reversible error only if the proffered instruction “(1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, that failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his defense.” United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463, 477-78 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have held that “a district court should give the instruction that a criminal defendant requests as to any defense as long as the instruction ... has an evidentiary foundation[ ] and ... accurately states the law applicable to the charged offense.” United States v. Stotts, 113 F.3d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1997).

With these standards in mind, we have carefully reviewed the record on appeal. We conclude that the district court properly found that there was no evidence in the trial testimony to support the self-defense instruction. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to instruct the jury on Bibb’s theory of self defense.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *366 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

*

A shank is a sharpened instrument used as a weapon in prison.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 F. App'x 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bibb-ca4-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack