NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 220.43
MAKING A MATERIALLY [FALSE] [MISLEADING] STATEMENT THAT A RELATIONSHIP WITH A TREATMENT PROVIDER EXISTS WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD. FELONY.
The defendant has been charged with making a materially [false]
[misleading] statement that a relationship with a treatment provider exists
with the intent to defraud.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove
two things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant knowingly1 made a materially [false]
[misleading] statement that a relationship with a treatment provider2 existed.
And Second, that the defendant did so with the intent3 to defraud
another person.
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date, the defendant knowingly made a materially [false]
[misleading] statement that a relationship with a treatment provider existed
with the intent to defraud another person (nothing else appearing)4, it would
be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find or have a
reasonable doubt as to one or both of these things, it would be your duty to
return a verdict of not guilty.
History
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 220.43 (March 2024). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.151(d)(3). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
bb7255c2c521860e501f50a50f5c6a71119bc917d3dbaf6707af4ac5ef048db0
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.