United States v. Maurice Eugene Brown

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Maurice Eugene Brown

26 F.3d 119, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 17757, 1994 WL 316037

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 1994

Docket93-4267

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 26 F.3d 119 (United States v. Maurice Eugene Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Maurice Eugene Brown, 26 F.3d 119, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 17757, 1994 WL 316037 (11th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this drug case, defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give a lesser included offense charge to the jury. Defendant says the jury should have had an opportunity to find him guilty of simple possession for personal use, as an alternative to importation and possession with intent to distribute.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the lesser included offense charge. Defendant possessed two kilograms of 93% pure cocaine. Defendant also admitted that he planned to sell the cocaine. No rational jury could have concluded, based on the evidence, that defendant intended to possess the cocaine for purely personal use. See U.S. v. Catchings, 922 F.2d 777, 780-81 (11th Cir.1991).

Our conclusion in this case is strengthened by the fact that Brown’s defense rested not on a theory that corresponds to the requested instruction, that is, that defendant had no intent to distribute. Rather, defendant argued at trial that he lacked knowledge of the cocaine. When a defendant relies on an exculpatory defense that, if believed, would lead to acquittals on both the greater and lesser charges, it is no abuse of discretion to refuse to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. See U.S. v. Zwpata-Tamallo, 833 F.2d 25, 28-29 (2nd Cir.1987).

Defendant’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this drug case, defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give a lesser included offense charge to the jury. Defendant says the jury should have had an opportunity to find him guilty of simple possession for personal use, as an alternative to importation and possession with intent to distribute.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the lesser included offense charge. Defendant possessed two kilograms of 93% pure cocaine. Defendant also admitted that he planned to sell the cocaine. No rational jury could have concluded, based on the evidence, that defendant intended to possess the cocaine for purely personal use. See U.S. v. Catchings, 922 F.2d 777, 780-81 (11th Cir.1991).

Our conclusion in this case is strengthened by the fact that Brown’s defense rested not on a theory that corresponds to the requested instruction, that is, that defendant had no intent to distribute. Rather, defendant argued at trial that he lacked knowledge of the cocaine. When a defendant relies on an exculpatory defense that, if believed, would lead to acquittals on both the greater and lesser charges, it is no abuse of discretion to refuse to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. See U.S. v. Zwpata-Tamallo, 833 F.2d 25, 28-29 (2nd Cir.1987).

Defendant’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F.3d 119, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 17757, 1994 WL 316037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-maurice-eugene-brown-ca11-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack