Opinion ID: 2998940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interstate Commerce Instruction

Text: The defendants argue that none of the instructions submitted to the jury sufficiently set forth the government’s burden on the interstate commerce element of the offense. The district court’s decision not to instruct the jury on a theory of defense is reviewed de novo. United States v. Buchmeier, 255 F.3d 415, 426 (7th Cir. 2001). The district court is afforded substantial discretion with respect to the precise wording of instructions so long as the final result, read as a whole, completely and correctly states the law. United States v. Tingle, 183 F.3d 719, 729 (7th Cir. 1999). In this case, the court refused the defendants’ tendered instruction, which read as follows: In order to sustain any of the charges as contained in the indictment, alleging conspiracy to make, utter and possess counterfeit securities and uttering and possessing counterfeit checks, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the organizations identified as the payor or issuing companies on the checks operated in or that the activities of these companies affected interstate commerce. Defendants also objected to the government’s elements instruction on the ground that it did not contain the interstate commerce element of the offense. The court overruled this objection, and dismissed the argument again when defendants raised the same issue in their motion for a new trial. In denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial, the district court held that the interstate commerce element of the offense was adequately covered by the given instruction because it defined the term “organization.” Indeed, the court plainly instructed the jury on the meaning of the word “organization”: The term “organization” means a legal entity, other than a government, established or organized for any Nos. 05-1385 & 05-1582 11 purpose, and includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership [sic] joint stock company, foundation, institution, society, union, or any other association of persons which operates in or the activities of which affect interstate commerce. The language in the approved instruction almost exactly matches the definition of the term “organization” in 18 U.S.C. § 153(c)(4). Because the court properly defined the term to the jury and expressly stated that “the Government must prove . . . that the defendant uttered or possessed a counterfeit and forged security of an organization,” it properly apprised the jury of the government’s burden to prove this element of the offense. When read as a whole, the instructions fairly and accurately stated the law. See Tingle, 183 F.3d at 729. As a result, the district court committed no error.