Opinion ID: 673449
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leads Instruction

Text: 42 Bencs contends that the court erred in refusing his requested instructions that the government is duty bound to follow up leads presented to them, and that the government's failure to do so may be seen as a complete defense to a prosecution based upon net worth analysis. (Defendant's requested instructions 33A and 62B.) [W]hen a theory of defense finds some support in the evidence and in the law, a defendant is entitled to some mention of that theory in the instructions. United States v. Garner, 529 F.2d 962, 970 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 922, 96 S.Ct. 2630, 49 L.Ed.2d 376, 429 U.S. 850, 97 S.Ct. 138, 50 L.Ed.2d 124 (1976). However, a party is not entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if that party does not produce sufficient evidence of such theory. United States v. Carpenter, No. 88-2190, 1989 WL 140188 at  3, 1989 U.S.App. LEXIS 17588 at  9- 10 (6th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (defendant not entitled to instruction that government failed to pursue leads resulting in incorrect net worth). 43 The court's leads instruction adequately informed the jury that they were entitled to take into account the government's response to reasonable leads furnished by the defendant. On this record, Bencs was entitled to no more. While we do not foreclose the possibility that instructions approximating those requested by Bencs might be warranted in the proper case, we find no error in the court's refusal of Bencs' request on the record presented.