Opinion ID: 563868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mail Fraud Instructions

Text: 14 Simas contends the district court erred in its instructions to the jury concerning the mail fraud counts. Specifically, Simas objects to the word ordinarily in the following jury instruction: 15 Intent to Defraud means to act knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive, ordinarily for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another, or bringing about some financial gain to one's self. 16 Reporter's Transcript at 997 (emphasis added). Simas argues the word ordinarily allowed the jury to convict him of mail fraud on the basis of evidence of his deception in dividing MPAs into $200 increments and misdescribing the items purchased. Simas contends the instruction was erroneous because it allowed the jury to find him guilty of mail fraud based solely on his improper acts with regard to the MPAs, even if these acts were done for the purpose of avoiding bureaucratic red tape as he contended. Simas argues this alleged error requires reversal under McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358-60, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 2880-82, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987) (holding mail fraud statute protects against the deprivation of monetary or property rights but not intangible rights); see also United States v. Hilling, 891 F.2d 205, 207 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 546, 107 L.Ed.2d 543 (1989). 17 We review jury instructions as a whole to determine if they are misleading or inadequate. United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 525 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 210, 112 L.Ed.2d 170 (1990). The district court's instructions specifically told the jury they had to find Simas intended to deprive BART of money or property to convict him of the mail fraud counts. The district court instructed the jury that they had to find the scheme was intended to deceive someone in order to obtain money or property, and that the scheme included any plan ... intended ... to obtain ... money or property from persons so deceived. Taken as a whole, the jury instructions were not misleading or inadequate.