holding that "[t]he law does not require that the Defendant used the controlled substance at the precise time he possessed the firearm"
How later courts described this case
- holding that "[t]he law does not require that the Defendant used the controlled substance at the precise time he possessed the firearm"
- holding that an objection was preserved when the defendant objected to the court’s failure to read proposed jury instruction
- acknowledging that syringes and scales are common drug paraphernalia
- affirming the use of an instruction nearly identical to that of the district court’s before crafting a substantively similar instruction to be giv en in future cases
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in all of the opinion except Part III.G. While I make no criticism of the instruction offered in that section, I would prefer not to reach the question of what instruction should be given in future cases under § 922(g)(3). In my experience, cases under § 922(g)(3) are infrequently prosecuted, and we have little basis for knowing typical fact patterns in such cases. Selecting an instruction that might be generally appropriate is thus difficult. The better course seems to be to refrain from offering a suggested instruction at this time and do so in the future only if subsequent prosecutions demonstrate that it is needed.