Opinion ID: 161720
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instruction on the Community Pit

Text: 29 The McPhilomys argue that the district court's instructions misled the jury regarding the legal effect of the community pit. More specifically, the defendants argue that the instruction that the government had superior rights over the community pit misled the jury. After reviewing the instructions as a whole, we cannot agree. 30 The disputed jury instruction stated, in relevant part: 31 Community pit means a site from which nonexclusive disposals of mineral materials can be made. The establishment of a community pit, when noted on the appropriate Bureau of Land Management records or posted on the ground, constitutes a superior right to remove material as against any subsequent claim or entry of the lands. 32 The district court took this passage from the regulation verbatim, 43 C.F.R. 3600.0-5(g), making it an accurate statement of the law. The prior paragraph of the instruction also informed the jury that [s]ome types of designations do not preclude the staking and location of a mining claim. 33 The court also gave instructions about prospecting, discovery, location, and the requirement that a claimant locate valuable minerals in order to establish a mining claim. The court specifically instructed the members of the jury that they were to decide [w]hether a particular defendant was attempting to establish a mining claim, that is, whether his activities were prospecting, discovery, or location. These instructions about mining claims would have been wholly irrelevant if the community pit designation precluded new mining claims as a matter of law. While the instruction might have been clearer if it had stated explicitly that location of a mining claim may occur in a community pit, on the whole, the instructions adequately informed the jury of the relevant law governing mining claims and the effect of the community pit designation.