Opinion ID: 788154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Confusion of the jury4

Text: 13 Defendant focuses further on one particular instruction that he asserts is contradictory of other instructions issued by the judge. The instruction in question first instructs the jury that: 14 The good faith of the defendant Jon Pensyl is a defense to charges one through three of the indictment, because good faith is inconsistent with acting willfully as required before a person—as required before a person may be convicted of tax evasion. [sic] While good faith has no precise meaning, it encompasses among other things an honest intention, an absence of malice and an intent to perform all legal obligations. Dist. Court at TR IX-200, Apx. p. 91. 15 The instruction to which defendant objects comes in the next sentence which says: As a general rule, ignorance of the law or mistake of the law is no defense to a criminal prosecution. Id. Defendant argues that those two instructions are contradictory and thus confusing and misleading. 16 If the judge had stopped there, the instructions might have confused a jury. However, in the next sentence, the judge continued: A defendant does not act willfully if he believes in good faith that he is acting within the law or that his actions comply with the law. This is so even if the defendant's belief was not reasonable as long as he held the belief in good faith. Id. This last sentence, in combination with the prior two, links the concepts of good faith, ignorance of the law, and willfulness in a reasonably clear and straightforward manner. Looking at the instructions as a whole, as we are obliged to do, we conclude defendant's argument on this second point has no merit.