Opinion ID: 157402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Definition of Corruptly in Jury Instruction

Text: 30 Gunwall claims that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of corruptly under § 7212(a). We conduct a de novo review of jury instructions to determine whether, as a whole, they correctly stated the governing law and provided the jury with an ample understanding of the issues and the applicable standards. Harrison v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 112 F.3d 1437, 1442 (10th Cir.1997), vacated on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2364, 141 L.Ed.2d 732 (1998). 31 The district court gave the following jury instruction on corruptly: 32 To act corruptly means to perform an act with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit to oneself or for another. Diverting agents from their duties of collecting taxes from Dr. Boos creates an unlawful benefit. Whether to draw this inference, and if you do, the strength of it are matters for you to decide. 33 Motives such as a desire to protest or to take a petty vengeance against revenue officers do not in themselves supply the necessary intent, but the necessary intent may coexist with such motives. 34 (R. 65, no. 31.) In this instruction, according to Gunwall, the district court made a finding of fact that diverting the agents' attention created an unlawful benefit, and so in essence ... directed a verdict against him. 35 Contrary to Gunwall's assertion, the district court did not make a finding of fact in stating that diverting agents from collecting taxes from Boos creates an unlawful benefit. Rather, the district court's interpretation of what constitutes an unlawful benefit for the purpose of construing corruptly under § 7212(a) is point of law. See United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995, 1000 (5th Cir.1985) (district court's construction of corruptly under § 7212(a) is an interpretation of the law). As a result, we find that the instruction did not impinge upon the jury's role as a fact-finder. 8 Moreover, the district court properly left to the jury the fact-finding role of whether to infer that the defendants diverted the agents for the unlawful purpose of hindering their collection of taxes from Gunwall. Consequently, we find no error in the challenged instruction.