Opinion ID: 380089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Claimed Errors in Instructions.

Text: 48 Quilici argues that the court should have told the jury that the Los Angeles events were to be considered only as evidence against Federbush, and could not be considered as against Quilici. What we have said about the admissibility of this evidence disposes of this argument. The trial court's instruction to the jury 2 was almost identical with the instruction given in United States v. Outpost Development Co., supra, 552 F.2d at 870. There, we criticized the instruction because a common plan to commit an unlawful act is not necessarily a scheme to defraud (Id.). However, we also pointed out: 49 Furthermore, the only evidence of a common plan introduced at the trial was evidence of the fraudulent scheme. Because the only evidence of a common plan was evidence of the fraudulent scheme, the instruction, even if not wholly correct as a matter of law, could not have prejudiced the defendants. 50 Id. at 870-871. 51 That is also the situation in this case. Moreover, the court more than once told the jury that it could only consider an alleged earlier offense of a like nature if it had found, beyond a reasonable doubt, from the other evidence in the case, that the accused did the act charged in the indictment. We find no error.
52 The court refused an instruction that the Windward Bank could stop payment on its cashier's checks. It gave no instruction on the question. The defendants claim error. The issue is a red herring, dragged across the defendants' trail by Federbush in his testimony. As we have seen, the bank was always insolvent, ultimately to the tune of some.$660,000.00. Even if, as Federbush said, it had stopped payment on $200,000.00 of the bad checks with which it was papering the country, it still would have been insolvent, and its checks would have been, as they in fact were, dishonored. Equally a red herring, in the light of what the defendants did, is their claim that they were offering Columbus the benefit of what they call the extended disbursement float, and that all would have worked out for the best if only they had been let alone. Columbus was afloat when defendants boarded it, but thanks to them, it promptly sank.
53 The defendants criticize the court's instruction on intent, saying that it is a direction to convict. We quote the instruction in the margin. 3 The defendants overstate the effect of the instruction. Moreover, we do not view this instruction in a vacuum, but in the light of the entire charge. The court flatly charged that good faith is a complete defense. It emphasized and reemphasized, by our count not less than 15 times, the government's burden to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as to each element of the offense. We do not consider the court's instruction to be a model, but we do not find reversible error. 54 The court did not give the defendants' proposed instruction on specific intent. It would not have been error to give the instruction, but, in light of the instructions that the court did give, the refusal was not reversible error.
55 Defendants criticize an instruction reading: 56 A statement or representation is false or fraudulent within the meaning of this statute, if known to be untrue, or made with reckless indifference as to its truth or falsity, and made or caused to be made with the intent to deceive. 57 Our decision in Irwin v. United States, 9 Cir., 1964, 338 F.2d 770, 774, answers this claim of error. See also United States v. Love, 9 Cir., 1976, 535 F.2d 1152, 1157-1158.
58 Defendants criticize an instruction reading: 59 You may consider it reasonable to draw the inference and find that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted. 60 We, too, have criticized such an instruction. United States v. Eaglin, 9 Cir., 1977, 571 F.2d 1069, 1076; Cohen v. United States, 9 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 751, 755. However, in both of those cases we decided, in the light of all of the instructions given, that the jury could not have been misled. We reach the same conclusion here. 61 The judgments of conviction are affirmed. 62