decide today whether the failure to give a lesser included jury instruction is constitutional error. For even under the more lenient standard of Kotteakos, the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession was not harmless. Hernandez’s jury was instructed only on possession with intent to distribute. The government presented uncontro-verted evidence at trial that Hernandez possessed methamphetamine. Faced with a defendant who was unequi 422-23, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970) (concluding that possession of 14.68 grams of cocaine mixed with sugar was insufficient to sustain a conviction for distribution, despite possession of heroin that "proved he was dealing in drugs”); United States v. Latham, 874 F.2d 852, 862-63 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The government's expert testified that
holding that an inference of intent to distribute was not warranted from the possession of one ounce of cocaine holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute