Opinion ID: 585701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instructions On Intent to Defraud

Text: 11 Gay and Porter argue that the district court's instruction on circumstantial evidence of intent, permitting the jury to examine the scheme itself, is misleading. However, we have repeatedly held that the scheme itself constitutes probative circumstantial evidence of an intent to defraud. United States v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir.1990) ([T]his intention is shown by examining the scheme itself.); United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1442 (9th Cir.1990) (Specific intent is established by the existence of a scheme which was reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension, and this intention is shown by examining the scheme itself.) (quotations omitted); United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1207 (9th Cir.1984) (same), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 925 (1985); United States v. Bohonus, 628 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 928 (1980).