Opinion ID: 165851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instruction 51—Elements of Fraud

Text: 87 Naylor's last argument is that the district court inappropriately instructed the jury it could find securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. § 77q without finding Naylor had an intent to defraud. Naylor objected to this instruction at trial. Therefore we review the instructions de novo to determine whether, as a whole, the instructions correctly state the governing law and provide the jury with an ample understanding of the issues and applicable standards. United States v. Cecil, 96 F.3d 1344, 1347 (10th Cir.1996). 88 The portion of Instruction 51 to which Naylor objected provided: 89 A statement which is untrue or a representation which is false rises to the level of fraud when the person making it knew the statement to be untrue or knew the representations to be false at the time that the statement or representation was made. 90 Naylor asserts this instruction allowed a jury to make a finding of fraud based solely on whether he knowingly made an untrue statement or representation, without requiring the jury to also find that he had an actual intent to defraud. 91 Once again, Naylor's argument fails because it improperly isolates one part of the jury instruction, rather than taking into account the instructions as a whole. Instruction 51 consisted of seven full paragraphs describing the meaning of fraud, fraudulent, and defrauding. Other parts of the instruction explained: 92 — If the evidence has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants. . . acted with a fraudulent intent. . . it is unimportant whether the defendants were successful and accomplished the plan; 93 — [E]ven though some individual may have lost money in the transactions . . ., this does not rise to the level of fraud unless the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the transaction was designed and intended by the defendant to deceive, or trick, or injure, or damage; and 94 — An honest belief or `good faith' belief by the defendants that the statements or representations made were true is a complete and total defense to the charge of securities fraud. 95 Viewed as a whole, the instruction required the jury to find intent to defraud before it could convict Naylor. Consequently, Naylor's contention is without merit and the district court did not err.