Cash v. United States
1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 187, 648 A.2d 964, 1994 WL 578165 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for a specific intent crime must be reversed if the trial court fails to instruct the jury on the essential element of specific intent, even if counsel does not object at trial.
Facts:
- Police officers observed Anthony Cash receiving money from another man.
- After being alerted to the police presence, Cash placed nine ziplock bags into the handle of a dumpster.
- The nine bags each contained a twenty-dollar rock of crack cocaine.
- A search of Cash revealed he had two hundred fifty-one dollars in his pants pocket.
- An expert witness testified at trial that the quantity and packaging of the seized drugs were consistent with an intent to distribute, rather than for personal use.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Cash was charged in the trial court with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (PWID).
- During the trial, the court gave the jury final instructions for the crime of simple possession, not PWID.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Cash (appellant) appealed the conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, arguing the jury was improperly instructed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the essential element of specific intent to distribute for a charge of Possession With Intent to Distribute (PWID) require reversal of the conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A conviction must be reversed where the jury was not instructed on an essential element of the charged offense. In this case, the jury was never told that to convict for Possession with Intent to Distribute, it must find that the government proved Cash had the specific intent to distribute the controlled substance. The government conceded this instructional error. Although the evidence was sufficient to sustain a PWID conviction had the jury been properly instructed, the failure to provide the correct instruction is a fatal error. The court therefore reverses the conviction and remands, giving the government the option to either retry Cash on the PWID charge or accept a judgment of conviction on the lesser included offense of simple possession.
Separate statement - Mack, Senior Judge
Yes. While agreeing that the instructional error mandates reversal, this opinion disagrees with the proposed remedy. Judge Mack would not permit the government to have the sole election on remand to simply enter a judgment for the lesser included offense of simple possession.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental due process principle that a conviction is only valid if the jury has found the defendant guilty of every essential element of the charged crime. The case highlights that an omission of the mens rea (mental state) element, such as specific intent, is a structural error that is not harmless. It also illustrates a common appellate remedy in such situations: allowing the prosecution, on remand, to choose between a retrial on the original charge or accepting a conviction on a lesser included offense for which the evidence is sufficient.
