Opinion ID: 798180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: District Court's Failure to Give a Good-Faith Defense Instruction

Text: 31 Finally, Rayborn argues that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the good-faith defense to fraud, found in Section 10.04 of the Sixth Circuit Pattern Instructions. Rayborn's defense was that he relied in good faith on Bullock, his accountant, to properly prepare the loan documents. He contends that he never realized the 2000 and 2001 tax returns prepared for Wells Fargo were incorrect, and that he never engaged in fraudulent conduct. [W]e have held that it is error to fail to instruct on the defendant's theory of the case. United States v. McGuire, 744 F.2d 1197, 1201 (6th Cir.1984). Rayborn argues that given the numerous examples of evidence of his good-faith reliance on Bullock, his right to a fair trial was severely prejudiced. 32 Unfortunately for Rayborn, however, he failed to ask for a good-faith instruction at trial. As such, we will only review his claim for plain error. Wood, 364 F.3d at 708. An error is plain when it is obvious, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings. United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 739 (6th Cir.2006). Moreover, an improper jury instruction will rarely justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made at trial, . . . and an omitted or incomplete instruction is even less likely to justify reversal, since such an instruction is not as prejudicial as a misstatement of the law. United States v. Hook, 781 F.2d 1166, 1172-73 (citing Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154-55, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977)). 33 Here, the district court did not commit plain error. First, the prosecution presented a great deal of evidence against Rayborn, including the fraudulent tax returns and expert testimony concluding that Rayborn signed them, a lease containing Rayborn's signature and a forged signature of his daughter, and the simple fact that Rayborn procured a mortgage loan well beyond his means. Second, Rayborn had the opportunity to present evidence that he relied entirely on Bullock. The failure to instruct the jury on the good-faith defense did not affect Rayborn's substantial rights, or the fairness of the trial. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d at 739. Accordingly, there was no plain error that justifies a new trial. 34 For the reasons above, Rayborn's conviction is AFFIRMED.