Opinion ID: 362254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instructions to Jury on Conspiracy; Aiding and Abetting

Text: 82 Next, appellant challenges the jury instructions, and specifically charges that the trial court failed to instruct on his theory of defense to the charges of conspiracy, and of aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of obscene materials. 83 The court gave five instructions relating to conspiracy which completely covered the applicable legal principles on conspiracy. (T)he court retains discretion in Framing the instruction; it is therefore sufficient that the charge to the jury adequately and correctly covers the Substance of the requested instruction. United States v. Brown, 540 F.2d 364, 380 (8th Cir. 1976) (emphasis added). 84 One requested instruction not included, however, related to abandonment of the conspiracy, and would have instructed the jury that it must find defendant not guilty if the conspiracy had been abandoned at the time Gentry, Leone, and Dobler agreed to steal the films. We do not think the evidence justified such an instruction; there is no evidence that the illegal object of the agreement was surrendered when the first theft was frustrated it was in fact later carried out. Further, and more precisely, there was no evidence that Wedelstedt withdrew from the conspiracy. (W)ithdrawal requires some affirmative action tending to defeat or disavow the purpose of the scheme, and the abandonment must be complete and in good faith. United States v. Nowak, 448 F.2d 134, 139 (7th Cir. 1971). 85 Additionally we believe that it was not error to refuse appellant's two aiding and abetting instructions. 11 86 The substance of the first requested instruction is covered in the court's lengthy aiding and abetting charge. The second, which states a correct legal principle, may be inferred from the instruction given which provides, Inter alia, that a person aids or abets another in a crime if he knowingly and willfully associates himself in some way with the criminal venture, with the intent to commit the crime, willfully participates in it as something he wishes to bring about, and willfully seeks by some action of his to make it succeed. 87 Moreover, 88 Instructions are not a substitute for argument to the jury. If the judge fairly instructs the jury as to applicable principles of law so as to allow counsel on each side sufficient latitude to argue what he considers to be key points in his case, the trial judge has performed his duty. It is neither required nor appropriate for the judge to accentuate any particular legal principle. 89 United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352, 362 (9th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 777, 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976). We have reviewed the instructions as a whole, and find no error.