of constructive amendment of indictment by expanding the basis of conviction was “cured” by subsequent instruction, which correctly instructed jury about what it needed to find to sustain conviction). For the telephone counts, the indictment charged Mr. Haywood with the use of the telephone, not with the underlying activity that the use of the telephone caused or facilitated, as a crime in furtherance of the conspiracy. Pinkerton liability could only attach if the use of the telephone was in furtherance of the conspiracy, so if the jury found that the use of the telephone was to cause or facilitate a drug possession or distribution, it must have also found that the possession or distribution was in furtherance of the conspiracy. In light of the jury instructions as a whole, see id. (<HOLDING>), the jury instructions did not effect a
holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding that in determining whether constructive indictment occurred court must look at the allegedly erroneous instruction in context of the charge as a whole holding that when determining the adequacy of a jury charge an appellate court should look to the record and the closing arguments to place the words of the judge in context holding that in determining whether a purchase is for nominal consideration the trial court must look to the reasonable value of the interest acquired holding that in reviewing a jury instruction this court must review the entire instruction and look at all the evidence on the record to determine whether there was error and whether that error prejudiced the complaining party