Opinion ID: 359736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Natural Tendency Charge on Intent.

Text: 22 The appellant's argument that the trial court erred in charging the jury that intent may be shown by an act willfully done, the tendency of which may have been to injure the bank is groundless. In United States v. Killian,541 F.2d 1156, 1160 (5th Cir. 1974), this court forthrightly approved language identical in substance as a standard for proving intent. United States v. Tidwell reasserts that approval. 559 F.2d at 266. The appellant argues that since the evidence showed that there was no actual injury to the bank and that he intended to repay the bank, the tendency charge was particularly prejudicial. Actual injury to the bank and intent to repay are not material to the issue of intent. United States v. Tidwell, 559 F.2d at 266. The charge, as given, was proper. 23