Opinion ID: 1424883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions Theory of Defense

Text: Defendants asserted a good faith defense, arguing they lacked intent to commit wire fraud and requested the jury be told: In order to establish fraudulent intent on the part of a person, it must be established that such person knowingly and intentionally attempted to deceive another. The district court refused the instruction in favor of the Eighth Circuit Model Instruction on good faith which provides: Good faith is a complete defense to the charge of conspiracy to commit telemarketing wire fraud [and aiding and abetting wire and telemarketing fraud] if it is inconsistent with knowledge of the purpose of the agreement to engage in telemarketing wire fraud [or intent to defraud which are essential elements of the charge of aiding and abetting telemarketing wire fraud.] According to the defendants, the district court's refusal to use their instruction hampered the defense because the court's instructions did not focus the jury's attention on their asserted defense. Defendants are entitled to a theory of defense instruction if it is timely requested, is supported by the evidence, and is a correct statement of the law, but they are not entitled to a particularly worded instruction. United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 553 (8th Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Long, 977 F.2d 1264, 1272 (8th Cir.1992)). The district court has considerable discretion in framing the instructions and [i]t is sufficient if the instruction actually given by the trial court adequately and correctly covers the substance of the requested instruction. United States v. Rederth, 872 F.2d 255, 258 (8th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Richmond, 700 F.2d 1183, 1195-96 (8th Cir.1983)). We determine the adequacy of instructions by looking at them as a whole and in the context of the trial. Id. We see no basis for concluding the district court's good faith instruction was inadequate. It clearly defined good faith and stated it was a complete defense to the charges. The language requested by defendants shed no further light on the good faith defense, except to repeat the definition of fraudulent intent which was included elsewhere in the instructions. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion.