Opinion ID: 1435215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Proffered Instructions.

Text: Adler next complains of the trial judge's failure to give two proffered jury instructions. First, he contends the court erred in refusing to add a third paragraph to Instruction No. 4 on intent and good faith. [4] The additional paragraph was refused on the basis that it was covered in other instructions given. [5] Beets v. State, 94 Nev. 89, 575 P.2d 591 (1978). We find no error in that determination. We turn to consider Adler's requested instruction relating to reliance on advice of counsel. [6] In effect, Adler's contention is that he should have been acquitted of willful wrongdoing because he acted on the basis of advice from his attorney. He insists the trial court's refusal to give the proffered instruction was reversible error. Of course, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on his theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible that evidence may appear to be. Barger v. State, 81 Nev. 548, 552, 407 P.2d 584, 586 (1965). However, we note that contrary to appellant's suggestion, reliance on advice of counsel is not regarded as a separate and distinct defense, but rather as a circumstance indicating good faith which the trier of fact is entitled to consider on the issue of fraudulent intent. Bisno v. United States, 299 F.2d 711, 719 (9th Cir.1961); United States v. Powell, 513 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir.1975); cf. Barger v. State, supra . In Barger we held that the trial court's refusal to instruct on the defense of entrapment was prejudicial error. Here, in contrast to Barger, Adler's claimed reliance on advice of counsel is not a complete defense. Moreover, appellant did not seek legal advice respecting the lawfulness of his future conduct. Rather, he merely presented the facts to his attorney who commented that the requested compensation sounded excessive. His attorney advised that if the figures were later determined erroneous, the petition could be amended. Thereafter, the petition was filed and Adler confirmed its accuracy. There was no proof that Adler relied upon his attorney's advice with respect to the petition. No one can wilfully and knowingly violate the law and be insulated from the consequences by claiming that he followed the advice of counsel. See Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278 (1908). Accordingly, we uphold the trial judge's refusal to give the instruction.