United States v. Kenneth Lamar Madden
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17048
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Madden prosecuted on a three-count superseding indictment; Count 2 charged use/possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence; jury instructions varied from the indictment; district court’s instruction allowed conviction on a theory not in the indictment; Madden did not object to the jury instructions; court sentenced Madden on Counts 1, 2, and 3; on appeal, this court analyzes whether Count 2 was constructively amended and if the error is reversible; the court reverses Count 2 and remands; other convictions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court constructively amend Count 2? | Madden; the instructions broadened to include 'during and in relation to' | Government; acknowledged broader phrasing but focuses on potential impact | Yes, it constructively amended Count 2. |
| If so, is the error reversible under plain-error review? | Plain-error standard governs unobjected amendments | Olano plain-error standard applies; discretionary correction allowed | Yes; under Olano four-prong plain-error test, reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (grand jury indictment requirement; cannot try on uncharged charges)
- Dortch, 696 F.3d 1104 (11th Cir. 2012) (plain-error analysis for forfeited errors in indictments)
- Keller, 916 F.2d 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (constructive amendment; elements must be in indictment; broadening is error)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard; four-prong test; discretionary correction)
- Carroll, 582 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1978) (constructive amendment; pre-Olano rule requiring per se reversal (abrogated by Olano))
- Starke, 62 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 1995) (plain-error review in unpreserved claims)