You are here

9.24 Controlled Substance—Attempted Distribution in or Near School

Printer-friendly version

(21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 and 860)


The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with attempted distribution of [specify controlled substance] within 1,000 feet of the [schoolyard] [campus] of a [school] [college] [university] in violation of Sections 841(a)(1), 846 and 860 of Title 21 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

First, the defendant intended to distribute [specify controlled substance] to another person in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the [schoolyard] [campus] of [name of school]; 

Second, the defendant knew that it was [specify controlled substance] or some other federally controlled substance; and 

Third, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime and that strongly corroborated the defendant’s intent to commit the crime. 

Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of distribution of [specify controlled substance] in or near a school. To constitute a substantial step, a defendant’s act or actions must demonstrate that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances 

Jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of a crime. 

"Distribution" means delivery or transfer of possession of [specify controlled substance] to another person, with or without any financial interest in that transaction. 


See Comment to Instructions 9.15 (Controlled Substance–Possession with Intent to Distribute), 9.16 (Determining Amount of Controlled Substance) and 9.23 (Controlled Substance–Distribution In or Near a School). 

Jurors do not need to agree unanimously as to which particular act or actions constituted a substantial step toward the commission of a crime. United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Regarding cases involving a "controlled substance analogue" as it is defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(A), the Supreme Court held in McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015), that, in order to prove the knowledge element, the government must prove that either the defendant knew that the substance distributed is treated as a drug listed on the federal drug schedules—regardless of whether he knew the particular identity of the substance—or "that the defendant knew the specific analogue he was dealing with, even if he did not know its legal status as an analogue." Id. at 2305. 

The "strongly corroborates" language is taken from United States v. Snell, 627 F.2d 186, 187 (9th Cir. 1980) ("A conviction for attempt requires proof of culpable intent and conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the crime that strongly corroborates that intent") and United States v. Darby, 857 F.2d 623, 625 (9th Cir. 1988) (same).

Approved 3/2018