Opinion ID: 1384716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Instructions Linked the Corruptly Element to the Other Elements of the Offense

Text: On appeal, Matthews argues for the first time that the instructions did not indicate that the word corruptly was meant to modify the acts of destroying or concealing the gun. The argument goes: because the attempted obstruction of justice instruction listed corruptly as an independent third element, the jury was led to convict based on a finding that Matthews had acted corruptly in ways unrelated to the first two elements of the offense. As he failed to raise this argument below, we review only for plain error. United States v. Allen, 390 F.3d 944, 952 (7th Cir.2004); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Matthews's interpretation unreasonably parses the instruction. Contrary to his claim that the instructions placed `corruptly' conspicuously by itself, as a solitary third element, the corruptly element immediately followed the other two elements of the offense; and all three appeared in the same sentence. The first element required a finding that Matthews attempted to destroy or conceal an object. The next two elements refer back to and modify the first. Both the clause that Matthews challenges (Matthews acted corruptly) and the preceding clause (Matthews acted with the intent to impair the object's availability) naturally describe the acts of attempting to conceal or destroy the object. The instructions fairly and adequately indicated that the jury needed to find that Matthews corruptly attempted to conceal the firearm. Furthermore, we note that this is a typical and unproblematic structure for presenting mens rea elements. See, e.g., Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 152(6) (Third, the defendant acted knowingly and fraudulently.); Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (Third, defendant acted willfully); Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 286 (Fourth, that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud.). We find no error in the structure of the obstruction of justice instruction.