Opinion ID: 796002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of the Theory-of-Defense Instruction

Text: 21 We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's refusal to give a specifically worded theory-of-defense instruction. United States v. Ellerman, 411 F.3d 941, 945 (8th Cir.2005). We also consider whether the instructions, taken as a whole, fairly and adequately submitted the issues to the jury. United States v. Katz, 445 F.3d 1023, 1030 (8th Cir.2006). McCourt contends that the heart of his defense was that a hacker placed the illegal images on his computer without his knowledge and that he was entitled to have the jury instructed on this theory. 22 First, we note that the identity of the person who uploaded the files onto McCourt's computer is not relevant to whether McCourt knowingly possessed the files. Second, after reviewing the instructions in their totality, we are persuaded that they fairly and adequately apprised the jury of its duty to find that McCourt was the actual person who knowingly committed the offenses. Specifically, each of the instructions given on the substantive offenses required that the jury find that the  Defendant . . . knowingly reproduced for distribution, received and possessed the illegal material. (Emphasis added). The instructions for the inchoate offenses stated that a person may be found guilty of attempt if he intended . . . and further explained that this element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to the Defendant.  (Emphasis added). Likewise, the instructions on intent and knowledge sufficiently apprised the jury that it was the defendant's state of mind that they must consider. McCourt's theory of defense was, in essence, that the Government had failed to carry its burden of proving he committed the offenses. Thus, giving the proffered instruction in this case would have duplicated the instructions outlining the elements of the offense. See United States v. Serrano-Lopez, 366 F.3d 628, 637 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that a requested mere-presence instruction would have duplicated the instructions outlining the elements of the offense, the definition of possession, and the burden of proof). On the whole, we find that the jury was adequately instructed that it was the Government's burden to prove the identity of the person who committed the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot say, therefore, that the district court abused its discretion in failing to give McCourt's proffered theory-of-defense instruction.