Opinion ID: 555138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court's Refusal To Give Tabacca's Proposed Jury Instruction

Text: 39 Tabacca argues that the District Court erred when it refused to give his proposed jury instruction requiring that for a conviction under Sec. 1472(j), the jury had to find that he endangered the safety of the aircraft. 7
40 The question of whether a district court properly instructed a jury on the elements of a statutory crime is reviewed de novo. 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).
41 A proposed instruction regarding the appellant's theory of the case should be given if there is a foundation for it in the evidence and it is supported by the law. United States v. Escobar de Bright, 742 F.2d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Winn, 577 F.2d 86, 90 (9th Cir.1978). 42 Since, as discussed above, a conviction under Sec. 1472(j) does not require proof that Tabacca endangered the safety of the aircraft, there is no support in the law for Tabacca's proposed jury instruction. The District Court's refusal to give the instruction was therefore proper.