Jury instruction need not define term when ordinary meaning is intended

TRIAL/JURY INSTRUCTION United States v. Robinson, No. 04-7052, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Jan. 26, 2006)(E.D. Oklahoma). Appeal of convictions and sentence for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and possession of firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). HELD: District court need not define term for jury when its use in jury instruction comports with ordinary meaning. Because term “in furtherance” of is phrase of general use that connotes more then mere possession, district court’s failure to provide jury with definition did not invite jury to convict defendant of possession of firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking offense on finding that he merely possessed rifle when evidence also showed defendant was arrested with items associated with manufacture of methamphetamine. Read the opinion here.