United States v. Martell, 10739

• Decision Date: 18 November 1952
• Docket Number: 10740.,No. 10739,10739
• Citation: 199 F.2d 670
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MARTELL (two cases.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

199 F.2d 670 (1952)

UNITED STATES v. MARTELL (two cases.

Nos. 10739, 10740.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued November 6, 1952.

Decided November 18, 1952.

Cornelius C. O'Brien and Joseph F. McVeigh, Philadelphia, Pa. (Francis J. Myers, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

James C. Bowen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS, GOODRICH and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for income tax evasion under Sections 145(b) and 3793(b) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code.¹

The defendant makes several points as a ground for reversal. The first is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction and that, therefore, a judgment of acquittal should be ordered. With this we do not agree. There was evidence upon which the prosecution was entitled to go to the jury upon both indictments. There was no error in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant nor in refusing to compel the prosecution to choose between the two indictments as a ground for its case.

Another argument for reversal is that the judge erred in his presentation to the jury of the question of willfulness. Defendant's counsel had asked a charge concerning the necessity of establishing that the defendant's offense was willful. The jury was recalled and the court told them:

"I have been asked to charge you with respect to wilfulness. Strangely enough, members of the jury, there is no wilfulness needed in an income tax case. The burden of proof is for the Government to show that the defendant filed it with a bad purpose. That is what our Supreme Court says about it, a bad purpose, that makes the wilfulness. Did the defendant file that income tax return for gain to himself? If he did, that is a bad purpose. That is the degree of wilfulness required."

The defendant's counsel thereupon excepted to that part of the charge which stated that there was no need for proof of willfulness. The court then said:

"In other words, members of the jury, I will read the precise language that the Supreme Court uses. The Supreme Court says: `The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant with a bad purpose attempted to evade his tax. The jury can take all of the evidence into account to determine the defendant\'s intent or purpose.\' * * *"

Previously the court had said:

"We have another section which is 3793(b). The Congress says there that anyone who procures the same to be falsely or fraudulently executed is guilty of violating that law. That is how clear, that is how simple, that is how direct the law is in this particular case which you will apply to the facts of the case."

We think the sum total of these instructions was to confuse the jury about what was required. When that body was told that willfulness was not an element in the offense it was left with the impression that one could be convicted for income tax evasion through inadvertent error. We do not think the addition of the requirement of "bad purpose" helped to clear the confusion. Would it be a good purpose to fail to pay income tax in order to pay medical expenses for a sick wife or child? Would it be a bad purpose to fail to pay taxes to use the money to bet on horse races?

No one can know for certain what a given portion of a charge does to the collective minds of the jury but this particular point complained of was in a charge made after the jury had been recalled and...