Opinion ID: 657239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequate Jury Instructions

Text: 54 Woodley says the district court inadequately instructed the jury on stock ownership. Specifically, he says that the court omitted the subjective intent requirement and erred by rejecting his proposed instruction. 55 The court gave modified instructions that allowed the jury to consider Woodley's subjective good faith belief that he was entitled to the deduction. The court explained to the jury that Woodley need not possess a stock certificate to prove ownership. Rather, he rightfully owned the stock if he purchased or agreed to purchase it from Lynn. 56 We review de novo whether the court's instructions adequately presented the defendant's theory. United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1990). If instructions fairly and adequately cover the elements of an offense, we review their precise formulation for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lunstedt, 997 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.1993). 57 Woodley has not told us why the court's instructions are inadequate. The court allowed him to testify and argue his defense theory. The court's instructions covered the issues sufficiently to guide the jury.