U.S. v. Gaines
Decision Date | 18 June 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-5063,78-5063 |
Citation | 594 F.2d 541 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Harrison GAINES, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Kurt A. Philipps, Covington, Ky. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Ronald W. Mellish, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and LAWRENCE, District Judge. *
Appellant was convicted by a jury on November 2, 1977, in the Eastern District of Michigan on two counts of an indictment charging defendant with unlawful possession with intent to distribute 26.67 grams of cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841; 18 U.S.C. § 2) and unlawfully carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In sentencing Gaines, the trial judge directed that the firearm count run consecutively to the one for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Judge Churchill construed § 924(c)(2) as mandating a consecutive sentence. He ruled that the statute left him without discretion as to the imposition of a term of imprisonment running consecutively with that imposed under count one.
On appeal the defendant makes two contentions, namely:
(1) That the trial court erred in instructing the jury that ordinarily it is reasonable to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or omitted.
(2) That Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) does not require a consecutive sentence on the count charging defendant with the carrying of a firearm in the commission of a felony since, properly construed, the mandatory sentence provision is applicable only to second or subsequent convictions.
Shifting of Burden of Proof to Defendant
The trial court charged the jury as follows:
1
The standard instruction as to the inference of intent as suggested in Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 14.13 (3rd ed. 1977) reads as follows:
In United States v. Denton, 336 F.2d 785, 788 (1964) and United States v. Releford, 352 F.2d 36 (1965), Cert. den. 382 U.S. 984, 86 S.Ct. 562, 15 L.Ed.2d 473 (1966), this Circuit dealt with an instruction by the trial court which might convey, far more than the charge given in the present case, the impression to the jury that the burden of disproving intent, under certain circumstances, is shifted to defendant. In both cases the trial judge used the language: "So, unless the contrary appears to you from the evidence, you may draw the inference that (the defendant) intended all the consequences which one standing in like circumstances and possessing like knowledge should reasonably have expected to result from any act which he knowingly did or knowingly omitted." 2
In the Denton case Judge Edwards took notice of the vigorous criticism that had been directed to an instruction of this type. 3 Nevertheless, both there and in Releford this Court held that, in the light of the entire instructions, there was no error affecting any "substantive right" of the defendant. 4
Even if the criticized instruction were suggestive of a shift of the burden as to proof of specific intent, such effect was dissipated in the light of the charge in its totality. The trial court instructed the jury that it was not to single out one instruction but had to consider the instructions as a whole. The defendant was to be presumed to be innocent and could not be found guilty by mere conjecture or speculation. He was to be convicted only by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that burden is never shifted. The prosecution bore the onus of producing such quantum of proof in respect to specific intent. The jury could draw from the facts as found and proven such reasonable inferences as it felt justified in the light of experience.
This Court has held that there was no reversible error in an instruction as to inference which included the language "unless the contrary appears from the evidence." Such is particularly true where, as in the present case, the proof of defendant's guilt is strong. See United States v. Denton, supra, 336 F.2d 785; United States v. Releford, supra, 352 F.2d 36; also United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311, 321 (10th Cir. 1973), Cert. den. 415 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 1411, 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974); United States v. Littlebear, supra, 531 F.2d 898. Independently of any resort to inference by the jury, a plentitude of affirmative, objective evidence in respect to Gaines' intent exists. The district judge characterized the evidence in the case as "not only convincing (but) absolutely overwhelming."
If district judges in the Sixth Circuit charge at all on inferred intent, it is suggested that they do so in the language of the instruction on that subject recommended in Devitt and Blackmar § 14.13. 5 Even if the pattern instruction is not beyond criticism, there was no error in the charge of the trial court viewed in the whole rather than isolated part.
This Court further suggests that the wording in the model charge, to wit: "and done or omitted" not be used in the future in this Circuit. See United States v. Reeves, 594 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1979). The instruction by the trial judge in the instant case was in essence in accord with this recommendation.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that it was mandatory to impose a consecutive sentence on the count charging Gaines with carrying a firearm during the commission of the felony involved. It is argued that in the instance of a first felony offense a consecutive sentence under the statute is discretionary and that it may be made to run concurrently with that imposed in the case of the underlying felony conviction.
Section 924(c) of Title 18 was a rider to the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 which amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The section in issue states:
The nidus of the problem of interpretation of this subsection lies in that portion of it which states that the term of imprisonment in the case of a second or subsequent offense shall not be probated, suspended or made to run concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed for the felony, a limitation not made applicable to a first felony conviction. Appellant argues that in the latter case the imposition of a consecutive, additional sentence is discretionary and not mandatory with the court and that it may run concurrently with the sentence for the basic felony or may be suspended or probated. Counsel for Gaines contends that the trial judge failed to exercise his discretion as a result of his erroneous belief that a consecutive sentence for carrying a firearm in the commission of defendant's first felony offense was mandatory on his part.
The legislative history as to the enactment of § 924(c) and its 1968 predecessor is reviewed at length in United States v. Sudduth, 457 F.2d 1198 (10th Cir. 1972). In that case the Court was principally concerned with whether the subsection in question is merely an enhancement of the penalty for the underlying crime or whether it constitutes a separate offense. It was held in Sudduth that Congress intended § 924(c) to be a distinct offense. To similar effect see United States v. Crew, 538 F.2d 575 (4th Cir.), Cert. den. 429 U.S. 852, 97 S.Ct. 144, 50 L.Ed.2d 127 (1976) and United States v. Eagle, 539 F.2d 1166 (8th Cir. 1976), Cert. den. 429 U.S. 1110, 97 S.Ct. 1146, 51 L.Ed.2d 563 (1977).
The matter of proper construction of § 924(c) as related to consecutive sentences in the case of defendant's first felony conviction has not been dealt with in the Sixth Circuit prior to the present case. In United States v. Sudduth, supra, the Tenth Circuit ruled, without discussion or reasoning and in what appears to be Dicta, that "As to the question of first offenses, we hold that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Hill
... ... at 399- ... Page 1466 ... 400, 100 S.Ct. at 1749. Busic gives us pause because of the Court's repeated characterization of § 924(c) as an enhancement statute. 8 Were we confronted solely with the differing ... United States v. Sudduth, 457 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. [sic] 1972); United States v ... Page 1483 ... Gaines, 594 F.2d 541 (7th [6th] Cir.1979). Moreover, even if a person is sentenced to imprisonment under section 924(c), the normal parole eligibility ... ...
-
U.S. v. Guyon
...defendant's acts but it includes no presumption in this regard. This charge has been approved by this and other courts. United States v. Gaines, 594 F.2d 541 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2888, 61 L.Ed.2d 314 Appellant's third contention may be phrased as follows: deliber......
-
U.S. v. Crowder
...by this court prior to the Sandstrom decision. See, e.g. United States v. Reeves, 594 F.2d 536 (6th Cir.1979); United States v. Gaines, 594 F.2d 541 (6th Cir.1979); United States v. Cooper, 577 F.2d 1079 (6th Cir.1978); United States v. Denton, 336 F.2d 785 (6th Cir.1964). Following Sandstr......
-
United States v. Simmons
...which indicated Mr. Johnson's state-of-mind. United States v. Reeves, 594 F.2d 536, 5413 (6th Cir.1979), cited in United States v. Gaines, 594 F.2d 541, 5441 (6th Cir.1979). Mr. Johnson and his codefendant and Ms. Rivers visited a night-club in Columbus; were joined there subsequently by Ms......