Opinion ID: 76089
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Correctness of the Jury Instructions

Text: 17 Defendants contend that even if the indictment were sufficient, the convictions should be overturned because the jury instructions were improper. According to defendants, the language in the instructions allowed the jury to return a guilty verdict upon finding nothing more than a financial gain to defendants. We review jury instructions only for an abuse of discretion. Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Hardaway Co., 152 F.3d 1283, 1295 (11th Cir.1998). 18 The jury instructions explained that proof the defendants acted willfully and with the intent to defraud was essential to a guilty verdict. The instructions defined the necessary intent as follows: To act with intent to defraud means to act knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive someone, ordinarily for the purpose of causing some financial loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to one's self. (emphasis added). Defendants contend that the or in that definition improperly allowed the jury to convict based only on a finding of financial gain to defendants. The language they focus on, though, defines intent. Cf. United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275, 1299 n. 30 (11th Cir.2001) (affirming bank fraud conviction where identical words were used to define intent to defraud). It does not define the offense itself. A complete reading of the instructions makes clear that a finding of financial gain alone is insufficient for a conviction. The jury instructions in this case adequately laid out the elements of money or property wire fraud: 19 A defendant can be found guilty of [§ 1343 wire fraud] only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises. Second, that the defendant did so willfully and with an intent to defraud. Third, that the fraud related to a material matter. And, fourth, that the defendant [used wire communications]. 20 After receiving that charge, the jury returned its verdict by checking Guilty under Scheme to defraud Fulton County of money and property on the special verdict form. On appeal, we examine whether the jury instructions and verdict form, considered as a whole, were sufficient `so that the jurors understood the issues and were not misled.' McNely v. Ocala Star-Banner Corp., 99 F.3d 1068, 1072 (11th Cir.1996) (quoting Wilkinson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 920 F.2d 1560, 1569 (11th Cir.1991)). We do not focus on any single sentence in jury instructions because, [i]f the instructions, taken together, properly express the law applicable to the case, no reversible error has occurred, even if an isolated clause may be inaccurate, ambiguous, incomplete, or otherwise subject to criticism. Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir.1991). Having read the instructions as a whole and in conjunction with the verdict form, we are satisfied that the jury did not convict based solely upon a finding of financial gain for the defendants.