Opinion ID: 3032433
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nickolson’s Other Claims

Text: Nickolson claims error in not providing the jury with a separate instruction on police officer credibility. Nickolson correctly asserts “[a] defendant is entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on his theory of defense, provided that it is supported by law and has some foundation in the evidence.” However, “it is not reversible error to reject a defendant’s proposed instruction on his theory of the case if other instructions, 3 in their entirety, adequately cover that defense theory.” United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, the proffered instruction was sufficient. The officers’ ability to witness the outcome and their motivation were the defense’s two theories at trial. The general credibility instructions, together with the testimony attacking the officers’ veracity, were sufficient to caution the jury to questions surrounding the officers’ credibility. See United States v. Tamura, 694 F.2d 591, 602 (9th Cir.1982). Nickolson’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct also fails. “Reversal on this basis is justified only if it appears more probable than not that prosecutorial misconduct materially affected the fairness of the trial.” United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 943 (9th Cir.), amended by 197 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 1999). The prosecutor’s misstatement here was more minor than Nickolson portrays it: The evidence showed Nickolson did say he touched the gun, but he did not testify to this, which had to have been plain to the jury because he did not testify at all. Understood properly, the misstatement was inadvertent and minimal and does not rise to prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to require a new trial, cf. United States v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 935 (9th Cir. 1992) (new trial due to “prosecutor’s recurrent harping” on key issue), particularly when the jury knew the statement had to be incorrect. 4 Finally, Nickolson’s alleged “traces” of cumulative error are insufficient in light of his other claims, which we have rejected. See United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED. 5