Opinion ID: 155016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: j ury i nstructions

Text: Dashney argues that the trial court’s instructions were insufficient because they failed to instruct the jury that knowledge of illegality is an element of a structuring offense. When reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether the instructions adequately state the law and provide the jury with an ample understanding of the issues and controlling principles of law. United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 433 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2497 (1996). -5- In Ratzlaf, the Supreme Court held that structuring is not committed “willfully” within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. § 5322(a) unless the defendant knows that his conduct is unlawful. Ratzlaf, 510 U.S. at 136-37. The Court thus concluded that the trial court erred by expressly instructing the jury that the government does not need to prove that a defendant knew that his structuring was unlawful. Id. at 137-38. In holding that a structuring offense requires knowledge of illegality, the Court reasoned that § 5322(a)’s omnibus “willfulness” requirement should be construed the same way each time it is called into play by provisions in the same subchapter. Id. at 141. The Court noted that the courts of appeals, in construing § 5322(a)’s “willfulness” requirement, have consistently instructed juries to find “willfulness” when the defendant acted with “‘specific intent to commit the crime,’ i.e., a ‘purpose to disobey the law’” or when the defendant intended to violate a “known legal duty.” Id. at 659-60 (citing cases involving “willful” violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313, 5314, 5316). In this case, the jury instructions contain language similar to the language cited with approval by the Court in Ratzlaf. Instruction No. 12 informed the jury that a structuring conviction required them to find that Dashney acted “willfully” and Instruction No. 15 defined a “willful” act as one done with “specific intent to do something the law forbids; that is to say, with bad purpose to disobey or -6- disregard the law.” Instruction No. 16 reiterated the requirement that the government “prove that the defendant knowingly did an act which the law forbids, as knowingly is defined earlier, purposely intending to violate the law.” Viewing the instructions as a whole, we hold that the jury instructions complied with Ratzlaf. Unlike the deficient jury instruction in Ratzlaf, the jury instructions in this case did not explicitly inform the jury that it did not need to find that the defendant knew that his conduct was unlawful. See Ratzlaf, 510 U.S. at 137-38; see also United States v. Garza, 42 F.3d 251, 253 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2263 (1995); United States v. Jackson, 33 F.3d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1316 (1995); United States v. Bencs, 28 F.3d 555, 564 (6th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1117 (1995); United States v. Rogers, 18 F.3d 265, 267 (4th Cir. 1994). Nor did the instructions fail to define the willfulness element in terms of specific intent to act with the purpose to disobey or disregard the law. See United States v. Retos, 25 F.3d 1220, 1229-30 (3d Cir. 1994) (finding error where the district court instructed the jury that the defendant must act willfully but failed to define the term “willfulness”). Although Instruction No. 12 did not explicitly require the jury to find that knowledge of illegality was an essential element of a structuring offense, the jury instructions as a whole required the jury to make such a finding. The majority of the courts of -7- appeals that have addressed similar jury instructions have reached the same conclusion. 2 We therefore hold that the instructions as a whole complied with 2 Since Ratzlaf, the courts of appeals have struggled to determine the adequacy of jury instructions in trials conducted prior to Ratzlaf. Compare United States v. Marder, 48 F.3d 564, 574 (1st Cir.) (finding error where the district court instructed the jury that “the Government has to prove . . . [the structuring] was done willfully, that is, that the defendant knew of the reporting requirement and that the structuring had the purpose of evading the requirement”), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1441 (1995) with United States v. Goulding, 26 F.3d 656, 668-69 (7th Cir.) (finding compliance with Ratzlaf where the district court instructed the jury that “[a]n act is done willfully if done voluntarily and intentionally with the purpose of avoiding a known legal duty”), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 673 (1994) and United States v. Walker, 25 F.3d 540, 548 (7th Cir.) (finding compliance with Ratzlaf where the district court instructed the jury that “[a]n act is done willfully if done voluntarily and with intention to do something the law forbids”), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 371, and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 531 (1994). At least three circuit courts have addressed instructions that were substantially similar to the instructions in this case. In United States v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1322 (1996), the district court instructed the jury that “[a]n act is done willfully if its [sic] done knowingly and with an intent to do something the law forbids . . . [and] with the purpose of either disobeying or disregarding the law.” On direct review, the First Circuit upheld the defendant’s conviction, concluding that the instruction did not constitute plain error, if error at all. Id. Similarly, in United States v. Vazquez, 53 F.3d 1216, 1221 (11th Cir. 1995), the district court instructed the jury that “[t]he word ‘willfully’ as that term has been used from time to time in these instructions means that the act was committed voluntarily and purposely with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, that is, with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.” On direct review, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the jury charge did not constitute plain error under Ratzlaf. Id. at 1222. Only the Second Circuit in Peck v. United States, 73 F.3d 1220, 1226-27 (2d Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 106 F.3d 450, 451 (2d Cir. 1997), found error where an instruction expressly defined willfulness as an act done “with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or . . . with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.” The court based its conclusion solely on the district court’s rejection of an instruction requested by the defendant that would have explicitly required the prosecution to prove knowledge of illegality. Id. at 1227 n.7. The court stated that because the defendant “expressly sought, and the district court rejected, an instruction that complied with Ratzlaf . . . there is no basis to regard the instruction that was given, even if arguably -8- Ratzlaf’s requirement that the jury be instructed that knowledge of illegality is an element of a structuring offense.