Opinion ID: 1433877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions Concerning the Intent Element of Carjacking

Text: Defendant Guthrie argues that the district court erred with its jury instruction on Count 1, the carjacking charge. The relevant statute criminalizes the taking of or attempt to take a motor vehicle from another by force and violence or by intimidation, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. 18 U.S.C. § 2119. Guthrie argues that the jury was not properly instructed on the mens rea element of the crime, saying that the instructions discussed the element without reference to when the defendant must have had the requisite intent. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, the Defendant must have had the necessary intent at the time of the taking of the vehicle. Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 8, 119 S.Ct. 966, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). This Court reviews jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Frost, 914 F.2d 756, 764-67 (6th Cir. 1990). We will not reverse a jury verdict if the jury instructions accurately reflected the law and were not, when viewed as a whole, ... confusing, misleading, or prejudicial. United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 764 (6th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Blood, 435 F.3d 612, 623 (6th Cir.2006). In the jury instructions, the district court delineated the elements of the offense, including the intent element, Fourth: That the Defendant `intended to cause death or serious bodily harm' when the Defendant took the motor vehicle.  (Emphasis added.) The district court then proceeded to define the terms used in the statutory language. As to the intent element, the instructions said: Whether the Defendant intended to cause death or serious bodily harm is to be judged objectively from the conduct of the Defendant as disclosed by the evidence and from what one in the position of the alleged victim might reasonably conclude. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant had such an intent, the Government has satisfied this element of the offense. Despite acknowledging the accuracy of the court's recitation of the elements of the offense, Guthrie challenges this later explanation of the intent element for failure to include a temporal limitation. By focusing on one paragraph of the instructions, however, the Defendant mischaracterizes the instructions. Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole, rather than considered piecemeal. Taken as a whole, the instruction on the offense of carjacking accurately reflected the law. The instruction included the elements of the crime, as well as definitions of the terms in the statute. In listing the elements of the crime, the district court explained that the Defendant must have intended to cause death or serious bodily harm when the Defendant took the vehicle. Therefore, the district court did not commit error with the jury instructions.