Opinion ID: 66272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of jury instruction on justification

Text: “We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Carrasco, 381 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004). We review de novo the issue of whether the defense produced sufficient evidence to sustain a requested instruction. United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1329 (11th Cir. 1997). “A district court’s refusal to give a requested instruction is reversible error if (1) the requested instruction was a correct statement of the law, (2) its subject matter was not substantially covered by other instructions, and (3) its subject matter dealt with an issue in the trial court that was so important that failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant's ability to defend himself.” Carrasco, 381 F.3d at 1242 (quoting United States v. Paradies, 5 98 F.3d 1266, 1286 (11th Cir. 1996)). A requested “theory of the defense” instruction is not substantially correct unless it has both legal support and some basis in the evidence. United States v. Hedges, 912 F.2d 1397, 1405-06 (11th Cir.1990). Because the record demonstrates that Moss did not produce sufficient evidence to support a justification defense, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give an instruction on Moss’s justification defense. Consequently, we affirm as to this issue.