Opinion ID: 411342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elements of Wire Fraud

Text: 7 Cusino asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of wire fraud because (1) the jury was informed that it had to find that Cusino had devised a scheme (as opposed to the alleged scheme), and (2) the jury was not informed that it had to find that the wire transmissions were made with a specific intent to carry out an essential element of the scheme. 8 Although there may be room for argument about the appropriate standard for measuring instructional errors, see United States v. Valle-Valdez, 554 F.2d 911, 916-17 (9th Cir.1977), Cusino's first objection fails under either applicable standard--more probably than not harmless or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury instructions are to be examined as a whole. United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 673-75, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 1912-13, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975). Here, the trial court read the entire indictment to the jury and instructed them that the scheme to be proved had to be substantially the one alleged. The indictment refers to Multi-Power Corporation as the entity used by Cusino to solicit investments. 9 Cusino's second objection also fails. The specific intent requirement under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 pertains to the scheme to defraud, cf. Bohonus, 628 F.2d at 1174 (prosecution must prove that mail fraud defendant acted with intent to defraud), not to the causing of wire transmissions. One causes use of the mails or wire communications where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not specifically intended. United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 399, 94 S.Ct. 645, 647, 38 L.Ed.2d 603 (1974).