Utah Court of Appeals
Must Utah courts give good faith jury instructions in fraud cases? State v. Stringham Explained
Summary
Robert and Gale Stringham operated a substance abuse counseling center and used a physician’s signature stamp on insurance forms for services the physician did not provide or supervise. They were convicted of communications fraud and racketeering after the trial court denied their motion to enforce a tentative plea agreement and refused their request for a good faith jury instruction.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Stringham, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts must provide separate good faith jury instructions in communications fraud cases when standard mental state instructions are already given.
Background and Facts
The Stringhams operated Utah Treatment and Addiction Health Services, a substance abuse counseling center. They hired Dr. Walton, a licensed physician, to co-facilitate one group and occasionally consult with patients. Dr. Walton provided his signature stamp for billing his own patients, but the Stringhams used it on virtually all insurance forms from their facility, even for services Dr. Walton neither provided nor supervised. The Stringhams were charged with multiple counts of communications fraud and racketeering.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether to enforce an unaccepted tentative plea agreement, (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing a good faith instruction for the fraud charges, and (3) whether sufficient evidence supported Gale Stringham’s conviction.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied correctness review to the jury instruction issue. Examining federal circuit precedent, the court noted a circuit split on good faith instructions in fraud cases. The majority of federal circuits hold that separate good faith instructions are unnecessary when detailed mental state instructions are provided. The court adopted this majority position, reasoning that good faith instructions are “merely surplusage” when jury instructions adequately cover the government’s burden to prove intentional, knowing, or recklessly disregardful conduct. The trial court had instructed the jury on these precise mental state elements for communications fraud.
Practice Implications
Utah practitioners should understand that separate good faith instructions are not required in fraud cases when standard mental state instructions adequately inform the jury of the prosecution’s burden. However, the court commended trial judges who choose to give such instructions when appropriate. Defense counsel should focus on ensuring that mental state instructions are comprehensive rather than seeking redundant good faith instructions. The decision also reinforces that tentative plea agreements carry no binding effect until formally presented to and accepted by the trial court.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Stringham
Citation
2001 UT App 13
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 990630-CA
Date Decided
January 11, 2001
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court does not err in refusing to enforce an unaccepted tentative plea agreement or in denying a good faith jury instruction when detailed instructions on the mental state elements of communications fraud are given.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including enforceability of plea agreements and jury instruction issues; correctness for denial of motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence; substantial evidence standard for sufficiency to support conviction (evidence completely lacking or so slight and unconvincing as to make verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust)
Practice Tip
When requesting good faith instructions in fraud cases, demonstrate why the standard mental state instructions are insufficient rather than merely duplicative of the good faith defense.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.