United States v. Kelechi Ajoku

584 F. App'x 824
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 2014
Docket11-50230
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 584 F. App'x 824 (United States v. Kelechi Ajoku) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Kelechi Ajoku, 584 F. App'x 824 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Kelechi Ajoku (“Ajoku”) was convicted of four counts of making a false statement relating to a health care benefit program under 18 U.S.C. § 1035. On appeal, Ajoku challenges the district court’s jury instruction on the statute’s “willfulness” mental state element. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.

As conceded by the government in its opposition brief to Ajoku’s petition for cer-tiorari, the district court erred by giving an instruction on the element of “willfulness” that does not comply with Bryan v. United States. See 524 U.S. 184, 191-92, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998) (“As a general matter, when used in the criminal context, a willful act is one undertaken with a bad purpose. In other words, in order to establish a willful violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.” (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted)). It is thus undisputed that Ajoku’s jury received an erroneous instruction.

We apply harmless-error- analysis to cases involving improperly instructed juries on a single element of the offense. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9-10, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). On the record before us, we are unable to conclude that it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found [Ajoku] guilty” of the charges had it been properly instructed. Id. at 18, 119 S.Ct. 1827. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial or other proceedings consistent with this disposition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shin v. United States
D. Hawaii, 2021
United States v. Cory Eglash
640 F. App'x 644 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Tara Mazzeo
592 F. App'x 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
584 F. App'x 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kelechi-ajoku-ca9-2014.