Opinion ID: 683531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the district court's denial of jensen's request for

Text: CERTAIN JURY INSTRUCTIONS 20 Jensen contends that the district court erred in refusing his request for a jury instruction to limit the use of evidence regarding extrinsic offenses for purposes of impeachment. He also contends the district court erred in refusing his request for an instruction on his theory of the case. 21 A trial court's refusal to include a requested instruction in the jury charge is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and the court is afforded substantial latitude in formulating its instructions. United States v. Rochester, 898 F.2d 971, 978 (5th Cir.1990). Refusal to include an instruction constitutes reversible error only upon the occurrence of all three of the following conditions: (1) the requested instruction is substantially correct; (2) the actual charge given to the jury did not substantially cover the content of the proposed instruction; and (3) the omission of the instruction would seriously impair the defendant's ability to present his defense. United States v. Daniel, 957 F.2d 162, 170 (5th Cir.1992). 22 Jensen contends that the court erred in refusing his requested instruction which limited the jury's use of certain evidence of extrinsic offenses to purposes of impeachment. 6 Jensen identifies the following evidence which he contends required the limiting instruction: (1) evidence regarding false statements he provided on a bankruptcy document; (2) a false tax return; and (3) false loan documents. 23 Jensen relies on Rule 105 of the Federal Rules of Evidence which provides that [w]hen evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. 24 Jensen requested the following instruction: 25 [Y]ou have heard evidence concerning alleged false statements made by the Defendant concerning matters separate from those alleged in the Indictment. The Defendant is not charged with an offense for making these statements. You should not find him guilty of the charges in this Indictment based upon his allegedly making those statements. 26 The trial judge denied Jensen's request for the limiting instruction, stating that he thought it was covered. In pertinent part, the court's charge provided as follows: 27 The testimony of a witness may be discredited by showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some other time the witness said or did something, or failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony at this trial. If you believe that a witness has been discredited in this or any other manner, you are to give this testimony such weight as you may think it deserves. 28