United States v. Patricia Robertson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4805
8th Cir.2013Background
- Robertson, Spirit Lake Tribe member, administered the LIHEAP program funded by HHS.
- She approved LIHEAP heating assistance for her adult daughters 2007–2011 without listing Robertson as a household member or disclosing her substantial income.
- Daughters’ applications were for households in St. Michael and Fort Totten; Robertson’s husband James lived with her during at least part of the period but was not disclosed.
- Robertson admitted to living with an extended household and to benefiting from the program, while defense argued household sizes could render eligibility within 150% of the poverty level.
- Jury found Robertson guilty of embezzlement and willful misapplication; district court varied downward to three years probation with a condition prohibiting alcohol use.
- Appeals address instructions on mens rea, the proposed good-faith defense instruction, and the alcohol-prohibition probation condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by omitting and not defining willfully in the misapply instruction? | Robertson | Robertson | No error; instruction adequate. |
| Was the court required to give a good-faith defense instruction? | Robertson | Robertson | No abuse; proper to rely on existing mens rea instructions. |
| Was the alcohol prohibition as a special probation condition an abuse of discretion? | Robertson | Robertson | No abuse; supported by evidence and tribal law considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jain, 93 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 1996) (defining willfulness in mens rea for federal crimes; setting standard for adequate instructions)
- United States v. Brown, 478 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2007) (upholds instruction on mens rea; defers to substance over form)
- United States v. Goings, 313 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 2002) (good-faith defenses to statutes incorporating common-law intent elements)
- United States v. May, 625 F.2d 186 (8th Cir. 1980) (good-faith arguments with fiduciary or statutory offenses)
- United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1985) (standard for defense instructions; not entitled to all requested language)
- United States v. Scout, 112 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (burden to propose theory-of-defense instructions; not onerous)