Opinion ID: 170952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Theory of the defense

Text: We review the district court's refusal to give a particular instruction for abuse of discretion, but we review de novo the ultimate issue of whether the instructions as a whole adequately advised the jury of the issues in the case and the applicable law. United States v. Nacchio, 519 F.3d 1140, 1158-59 (10th Cir.2008). While the defendant is entitled to an instruction as to his theory of defense if there is evidence to support it, the court is not required to give an instruction that misstates the law or that is already covered by other instructions. United States v. Hollis, 971 F.2d 1441, 1452 (10th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Defendant's proposed instruction stated: The defendant asserts that he acted in good faith and that he paid a third party to prepare the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which he relied upon as legitimate without any knowledge or intent to file a document that contained a false material declaration. (Appellant's Br. at 36.) Defendant argues that this instruction was necessary because the instructions as given suggested that guilt could be ascertained by the fact that [Defendant] `used' the bogus document by voluntarily and intentionally filing it with the court, even if he was unaware of . . . its bogus nature. ( Id. at 38.) However, we conclude that the instructions as a whole clearly instructed the jury that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knew of the document's falsehood at the time it was filed. We note that the instructions on the elements of the offense stated that the government must prove not only that Defendant used a document or record that contained a false statement or declaration, but also that he knew such statement was false when the document was used. (Tr. 421-22.) We conclude that the charge given by the district court, if followed by the jury, was sufficient to preclude a conviction if the jury believed that Defendant did not know of the statements' falsity at the time he made or used them. United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir.1991) (upholding district court's refusal to give requested bad memory instruction because jury was instructed that defendant must have known statements to be false at time he gave them). Thus, assuming for purposes of discussion that Defendant's proposed instruction was supported by the evidence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give this instruction.