UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LESTER KALMANSON AND BARBARA KALMANSON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the jury instructions were not erroneous.
Appellants were charged with willful evasion of income taxes for 1964, 1965, and 1966. A jury found them guilty only for the tax year 1966. They appea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful Evasion Of Income Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
[*667] PER CURIAM:
Lester and Barbara Kalmanson were charged in a three-count indictment with willful evasion of income taxes for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966. After a jury trial, verdicts were returned finding the Kalmansons guilty only as to the count relating to the tax year 1966.
The Kalmansons timely pursued this appeal raising numerous allegations of error. We have carefully reviewed the record and have determined that the convictions must be affirmed.
The appellants questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt. The evidence in the present case, when viewed in a light most favorable to the government, is more than ample to support the verdict of the jury. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
Assigned errors relating to portions of the court’s instructions to the jury are likewise without merit. The court’s charge to the jury must be considered as a whole. United States v. Williams, 473 F. 2d 507 (5th Cir., 1973); Tillman v. United States, 406 F. 2d 930 (5th Cir., 1969). The instructions in the present case, when so viewed, were not erroneous.
Appellants claim that the trial court erred when toward the end of the second day of deliberation it requested the jury to reexamine its views in order to reach a unanimous result if it could do so without any member yielding a conscientious conviction. The charge, as given, tracked the wording of the standards recommended by the American Bar Association. American Bar Association, Standards Relating to Trial' by Jury, § 5.4 (Approved Draft 1968). There was no error. United States v. Bailey, 480 F. 2d 518 (5th Cir., 1973) (en banc).
Having carefully considered appellants’ remaining contentions and finding them to be without merit, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Wellendorf, 574 F.2d 1289 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. Bush, 599 F.2d 72 (5th Cir. 1979)
Authorities Cited
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942)
- Tillman v. United States, 406 F.2d 930 (5th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Darwin Clark Bailey, 480 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Williams, 473 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1973)