United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. William Sterling Anderson, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ronald Clement Bishop, Defendant-appellant, 829 F.2d 1121 (4th Cir. 1987)

William Sterling Anderson appeals Convictions for conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371, wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and the making of false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Ronald Clement Bishop appeals convictions for conspiracy and the making of false statements. The issue around which the appeals center is whether the instruction detailing the doctrine of conscious avoidance was accurate. The trial judge's instruction was as follows:

Guilty knowledge cannot be established by demonstrating mere negligence or even foolishness on the part of a defendant. However, it is not necessary that the government or prosecution prove to a certainty that the defendant knew that fraudulent statements concerning loan applications were being submitted to various financial institutions. The element of knowledge may be satisfied by proof that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard of whether fraudulent loan applications were being prepared and submitted, and with conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth, unless he actually believed that the statements in the application were true.

Appellants contend that the instruction should have contained language to the effect that the jury would have to find that the defendants had a subjective awareness of a "high probability" of the existence of illegality in order to return guilty verdicts. We need not resolve whether in a properly presented case the arguments of appellants would carry the day, because appellants' objection to the language of the instruction was not adequately presented to the district judge. We are further of the firm opinion that there was no plain error which would require reversal even in the absence of a proper objection by the defendants.

We are here presented with a classic case where the failure to object with sufficient precision denied the district judge the opportunity to correct the charge. Consequently it is not necessary for us to address a tangled question on the merits.

AFFIRMED.