Opinion ID: 604552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: instructions on defense theory of case

Text: 34 The appellants next argue the district court erred by (1) failing to give their particular instruction regarding Hanks's actions, (2) failing to give their particular instruction regarding Cook's duty as an accountant, (3) failing to instruct the jury that willfulness requires an evil motive, (4) failing to instruct the jury on the burden of proof relating to accounting decisions, and (5) failing to instruct the jury regarding corporate diversion. We conclude these arguments are without merit. 35 A district court must give a jury instruction on the theory of defense if the theory has a basis in law and the evidence presented at trial. United States v. Solomon, 825 F.2d 1292, 1295 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1046 (1988). The court, however, need not give the particular language proposed by the defendant if the instructions given fairly and adequately cover the defendant's theories of defense. Id. The district court has broad discretion in formulating the language of the instructions. Id. 36 We conclude the court adequately instructed the jury regarding the defense theory that the appellants did not direct Hanks to make the erroneous postings and did not know of the erroneous postings. We also conclude the court accurately instructed the jury on an accountant's role and the appellants' responsibility to provide complete and accurate information to the accountant. 37 Next, we conclude the court accurately informed the jury regarding the element of willfulness. [T]he term 'willful' in § 7206(1) requires proof of a specific intent to do something which the law forbids; more than a showing of careless disregard for the truth is required. United States v. Brooksby, 668 F.2d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir.1982); See also United States v. Loney, 719 F.2d 1435, 1436 (9th Cir.1983). The jury instructions need not require the jury to find the defendant acted with the intent to deceive or with an otherwise evil intent. United States v. Hawk, 497 F.2d 365, 366-69 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 838 (1974). We further conclude the district court did not err by failing to give the appellants' proposed instruction regarding the burden of proof and accounting decisions. The appellants' proposed instruction has no basis in law. 38 Finally, the district court did not err by failing to give the appellants' proposed instruction regarding corporate diversion. This instruction was unnecessary and may have served only to confuse the jury.