Opinion ID: 611949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction on Count Eleven.

Text: 20 Campbell claims that the district court did not accurately define the offense charged in Count Eleven. His argument, essentially, is that the court instructed the jury on the making of a false statement, but not on the use of a false writing. Because both types of fraudulent conduct were alleged in Count Eleven, Campbell contends that the failure to define the false writing aspect served to confuse and mislead the jury. 21 Campbell did not object at trial to the instructions on Count Eleven. We review them only for plain error. Boone, 951 F.2d at 1541.  '[P]lain error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.'  United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 979 (1979)), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1598 (1992). The review for plain error is utilized to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity and the reputation of the judicial process. Id. 22 The district court instructed the jury that 23 [t]he charge in Count 11 alleges a violation of section 1001 of title 18. I will paraphrase that for you: whoever in any manner within the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service knowingly and wilfully makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations of a material fact to the IRS is guilty of a crime. 24 .... 25 A statement or representation is false or fictitious if it was untrue when made, and then known to be untrue by the person making it or causing it to be made. 26 A statement or representation is fraudulent if known to be untrue and made or caused to be made with the intent to deceive the government agency to which it was submitted. 27 RT 2/5/91, at 5-143 to 5-144. 28 In describing the first of six elements that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial judge instructed the jurors that Campbell must be shown to have made a statement or representation to the IRS. In this case, I believe, it's a writing which contained statements or representations. Id. at 5-143. The government, echoing this refrain, argues that when Campbell presented the schedule to Quigley, he made a false statement because the schedule contained false information. 29 We find no plain error in the instructions given regarding Count Eleven. To the extent that the district court's instructions would have been more complete had they included a definition of false writings, any error of omission was harmless. A jury instruction error is harmless if no rational juror could have found the defendant[ ] guilty under the erroneous instruction and not also found [him] guilty under the correct instruction. United States v. Smith, 891 F.2d 703, 709 (9th Cir.1989), modified, 906 F.2d 385 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990). 30 Campbell's technical argument presumes that the jury was confused by the absence of an instruction on false writing. However, the judge's explanation that the written schedule was a statement for purposes of § 1001 eliminated any possibility of confusion on this issue. The difference between a false writing ... contain[ing] any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement and a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement is of no consequence. 31