Criminal Law

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving non-pattern instruction on aiding and abetting conspiracy charge, which, according to defendant, failed to inform jury with respect to "knowing association" element of said charge. Dist. Ct. is not required to use precise phrase "knowing association" in any aiding and abetting instruction, and instant instruction, which informed jury that defendant had tried to help conspiracy succeed, was sufficient to impart critical idea that defendant could be convicted only if he sought to advance conspiracy's criminal goal. Dist. Ct. also properly rejected defendant's proposed instruction on existence of multiple conspiracies, where proposed instruction erroneously told jury that it must acquit defendant if govt. failed to prove charged offense, but yet proved some other, smaller conspiracy that was consistent with allegations in indictment.

In prosecution on charge alleging that defendant-mayor conspired to embezzle city funds where defendant used city workers and city funds to renovate house located in different city and owned by defendant, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving jury "ostrich" instruction that addressed defendant's claim that he was unaware that city workers or city funds were used on his house. To extent that defendant was unaware of use of said funds or workers, record contained sufficient evidence to establish that defendant deliberately avoided truth about use of said workers or funds so as to justify said instruction where: (1) defendant acted differently with respect to renovation of instant house, as opposed to prior renovations of other properties in which defendant had directly paid for work performed by said workers during their off hours; (2) defendant avoided looking at receipts that workers placed in envelope that was kept at subject house; and (3) defendant failed to confront known city workers, who were performing work on instant house during city's normal business hours.