U.S. v. Murph, 82-5624
Decision Date | 26 May 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-5624,82-5624 |
Citation | 707 F.2d 895 |
Parties | 83-1 USTC P 9378 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John MURPH, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Eldon L. Webb (argued), Federal Public Defender, Lexington, Ky., for defendant-appellant.
Louis DeFalaise, U.S. Atty., Jane E. Graham, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lexington, Ky. (argued), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is a direct appeal by the defendant from his conviction for willfully causing another to submit a tax return to the Internal Revenue Service fraudulently claiming a refund. 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2(b) and 287. On appeal the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict and that the district court erred in its instructions to the jury.
The defendant took a false income tax return bearing a name other than his own and indicating that a refund was due the taxpayer to a "tax return discounter" and identified himself as the person entitled to the refund. The tax return discounter paid to the defendant approximately 50% of the amount shown due as a refund and then filed the return with directions that the refund be sent to him, the discounter. The defendant argues that he did not cause the tax discounter to make the claim for refund; rather, that his scheme ended when he sold the fraudulent tax return to the discounter and that he had no interest in whether the return was ever filed or not. He argues that the discounter filed the return for independent purposes of his own, that is, to obtain from the government approximately twice the amount he had paid the defendant for the return. Under these circumstances, the defendant argues, he did not cause the fraudulent claim to be filed. Ingenious though the argument of the defendant is, we conclude that it has no merit. The defendant knew when he sold the return to the discounter that the discounter was buying it for the purpose of presenting it to the government for a refund. This further act on behalf of the discounter was clearly understood and foreseen by the defendant and thus the defendant "caused" the return to be presented within the meaning of the Act. Compare Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 362-63, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954).
The defendant also complains that the district court charged the jury that it could find the defendant guilty if it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. McAuliffe
...the trial, the government may prove and the trial judge may instruct in the disjunctive form used in the statute." United States v. Murph, 707 F.2d 895, 896 (6th Cir.1983) (internal citation omitted). A constructive amendment claim has thus been rejected in the present context. See United S......
-
United States v. Pritchett
...denounces the offense disjunctively.’ ” United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526, 534 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Murph, 707 F.2d 895, 896 (6th Cir.1983)). At trial, the government may prove and the trial judge may instruct in the disjunctive form used in the statute. Id. The g......
-
United States v. Williams
...may be charged conjunctively in an indictment where a statute denounces the offense disjunctively." (quoting United States v. Murph , 707 F.2d 895, 896 (6th Cir. 1983) (per curiam))); see also Fed. R. Crim. 7(c)(1) ("A count may allege that ... the defendant committed [the offense] by one o......
-
U.S. v. Mayhew, No. 2:03-CR-165.
...though the statute declares the offense disjunctively. United States v. Hixon, 987 F.2d 1261, 1265 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Murph, 707 F.2d 895, 896 (6th Cir.1983). Defendant has provided no justification that would allow the Court to ignore this binding precedent. Defendant's citat......