With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to Wil-loughby’s actual distribution of cocaine (taking place miles from where the gun was found) and no evidence indicated that any distribution occurred at the storage facility (packaging drugs for later distribution is not distribution — that is why possession with intent to distribute is such a popular drug charge) and because a hypothetical future distribution is not a legitimate basis for a current conviction, the weapons conviction could only have been based upon a possession-protection theory, a valid ground in this circuit but not when it falls outside the scope of the indictment. Willoughby’s motion for a judgment of acquittal should have been granted. Willoughby, 27 F.3d at 266-67 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Weissman, 899 F.2d 1111, 1114-15 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Here, HRS § 708-840 (1993) provides that a

A: holding that the trial court reversibly erred when it altered an essential element of the crime charged and broadened the language of the indictment by instructing the jury on the general definition of enterprise for rico conspiracy
B: holding that even when a jury instruction is defective such a defect is cured when the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendants motion in arrest of judgment when the indictment lacked a material element and it was not apparent that the grand jury based the indictment on facts that satisfy this element of the crime and that the only permissible cure was to send the matter back to the grand jury
D: holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial
A.