Opinion ID: 161720
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Burden of Proof on Good Faith

Text: 43 The McPhilomys also argue that the district court's jury instructions were erroneous in not requiring the government to prove affirmatively that the defendants were pursuing their mining claims in bad faith. After considering the jury instructions as a whole, however, we find no merit in this argument, as the court explicitly placed the burden of proof on the government. The court instructed: 44 If you find that a particular defendant did not have the legal right to do what he did, you must consider whether that particular defendant had a good faith belief that he was engaged in a bona fide genuine effort to establish a mining claim, and thus, that he was not acting with the mental state that the United States is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 45 The instruction went on to state that good faith constitutes a complete defense to each charge. The instruction immediately following this one reiterated the government's burden: 46 I want to remind you that a defendant does not have any obligation to prove anything in this case. It is the government's burden to prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the particular defendant was engaged in the criminal acts charged, that in Count I that Michael McPhilomy, Jr.'s actions were willful, and that in Counts II and III that the particular defendant acted knowingly, with the intention of depriving the United States of the use or benefit of the property taken. 47 Taken together, these instructions provided the jury with an accurate statement of the law, as did the jury instructions on the other issues challenged by the McPhilomys.