Opinion ID: 1460292
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion to Strike Surplusage

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied Appellant's motion to strike surplusage in the indictment. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d). [14] In each count of wire fraud, instead of including the phrase, with intent to defraud, the indictment read, in reckless disregard of the interests of. DeRosier argues that the inclusion of the phrase in reckless disregard of the interests of was prejudicial and did not reflect an accurate statement of the law. We find Appellant's argument unavailing. [15] A motion to strike surplusage from an indictment is a matter within the court's discretion. United States v. Figueroa, 900 F.2d 1211, 1218 (8th Cir.1990). This Court has cautioned that such a motion should be granted only where it is clear from the allegations contained therein are not relevant to the charge made or contain inflammatory and prejudicial matter. Dranow v. United States, 307 F.2d 545, 558 (8th Cir.1962). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion. In Willis v. United States, 87 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir.1996), we approved of a jury instruction [16] which explained that the jury may find that the defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud if the defendant acted in reckless disregard of the interests of the bank. Id. at 1007 (stating that [a] majority of circuits that have addressed the question whether reckless disregard of the interests of the bank is sufficient to prove intent to defraud have answered in the affirmative). Likewise, we find that the district court did not commit reversible error when it did not strike the language in the indictment that described DeRosier as acting in reckless disregard of the interests of in lieu of stating that DeRosier had the intent to defraud her creditors. Because the reckless disregard standard is an acceptable specification of the term intent to defraud, the language does not constitute surplusage. We affirm the district court's ruling.