Document: 351 U.S. 131 76 S.Ct. 685 100 L.Ed. 1013 Louis BERRA, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 60. Argued March 26, 1956. Decided April 30, Mr. Stanley M. Rosenblum, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner was charged, in a three-count indictment, with wilfully attempting to evade federal income taxes 1951, 1952, and 1953 by filing Collector 'false fraudulent' tax returns, 'in violation Section 145(b), Title United States Code.'1 That section Internal Revenue Code 1939, 26 U.S.C.A., 53 Stat. 63, provided: 2 'Any person * who willfully attempts any manner or defeat imposed this chapter payment thereof, shall, addition other penalties provided law, be guilty felony and, upon conviction fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned five years, both, together costs prosecution.' 3 3616(a) 1939 Code, 440, also made it crime deliver 'any false fraudulent list, return, account, statement, intent valuation, enumeration, assessment intended *.' The penalty § 3616(a), however, fine $1,000, imprisonment exceeding one year, prosecution. 4 At close trial judge's charge jury, petitioner asked that jury instructed respect each count verdict 'lesser crime' under would permissible.2 No motions addressed validity judgment conviction, sentence 145(b) were before, during, after trial, we read requested instruction as aimed at leaving question whether defendant should convicted if found him guilty. refused, sentenced four years' on count, sentences run concurrently. Thus has been greater maximum possibile had alone. Court Appeals affirmed, 8 Cir., 221 F.2d 590, granted certiorari, 350 910, 190, limited error judge refuse give instruction. 5 Appeals, affirming held did apply relating therefore have irrelevant evidence case.3 Both parties agree, applicable shall assume, arguendo, correctness interpretation statute. 6 Rule 31(c) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, 18 provides may an offense 'necessarily included charged.'4 In case where some elements charged themselves constitute lesser crime, defendant, justified it, no doubt entitled which permit finding guilt offense. See Stevenson v. States, 162 313, 16 839, 40 980. But is such case. For here method evasion apparent facts necessary prove 'willfully' attempted identical those required he return 'intent' taxes, 3616(a). instance §§ covered precisely same ground.5 7 contends nevertheless He argues since there difference proof establish violations indictment must taken charging both sections, permitted make choice between two crimes. We do agree. role criminal decide only issues fact, taking law given court. Sparf 156 51, 102, 15 273, 293, 39 343. Certainly never change traditional function jury.6 Here, s deemed govern, factual submitted same; added issue jury's determination.7 When resolved against petitioner, its exhausted, statutory provision giving right determine punishment determination guilt.8 Whatever questions might raised petitioner's sentence, because assumed overlapping are presented here. 9 before us allowed rather hold jury. It was, therefore, 10 Affirmed. 11 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS joins (dissenting). 12 three counts 'did knowingly attempt large part due owing his wife joint Code.' that: 13 (Emphasis added.)1 14 could proscribed phrase manner.' certainly falls squarely within specific language U.S.C. U.S.C.A. 'Delivers discloses collector deputy discretion court, added.)2 appropriate time allegations proven they find misdemeanor Although unambiguously makes conduct punishable year prison, apparently felt compelled treat statement 'In *.'3 refused instruction, but returned guilty, serve years prison counts, 17 Regardless record raises serious four-year lawfully imposed. Court's takes position proper challenges statute below hence 'No here.'4 my adequate call attention contention misdemeanor. even again when announced 'Plain errors defects affecting substantial rights noticed although brought court.' Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 52(b), Wiborg 163 632, 658, 1127, 1137, 1197, 41 289. Since I think saying misdemeanor, correct plain sentencing Government admits assumes 145(b). action upheld 'the choose invoke either law,' prosecution though elected prosecute misdemeanor.' Election course means election prosecuting attorney Attorney General.5 object 145 3616. construe these sections so place control over liberty citizens unreviewable individual—a resutl seems me wholly incompatible our system justice. Congress specifically broad statutes, forfeit life, property, construed narrowly, broadly. 19 So far know, approved argument Beacon Brass Co., 344 43, 73 77, 97 61, rely. said: 20 'We proscribes other, overlap narrow area illustrated instant least different offense, single act transaction violate *' page 45, 78. 21 Government's argument, statutes proscribe 'different proof' convict whole rests stark premise left district General power say punish 22 A basic principle prosecutes people crimes passed fairly clearly define can administered.6 This flouted selected controlling whim General. 'For very idea man living, material essential enjoyment mere will another, intolerable country freedom prevails, being essence slavery itself.' Yick Wo Hopkins, 118 356, 370, 1064, 1071, 30 220. 23 congressional delegation vast department raise constitutional questions. Of true vest how much particular quite powers attorney. procedural rules carefully prescribed protect individual. Their judgments verdicts reached public represented protections thrown around decisions Substitution prosecutor's caprice adjudicatory process am willing attribute absence clear command. Our justice conception impersonality law. great protection lost dissenting Rosenberg 346 306, 1152, 1168, 1607. 24 concept all treated alike higher another circumstances same. differences appraisals cases judges juries. regard exercised their capacities administration 25 reverse remand resentencing statute, arises 1939. involved changed 1954 U.S.C.A.; see 7201, 7207, 68a 851, 853. 'Defendant's Requested Instruction 12. 'Under you indictment. 'The based, omitting does case, reads follows: 'Whenever delivers made, Count believe from delivered, caused disclosed First Collection District Missouri, crime.' (This paragraph repeated Counts II III.) holding followed earlier decision Dillon 218 97. 'Rule 31. Verdict (c) Conviction Less Offense. necessarily commit therein offense.' Compare 7207 1954, wilful longer requires element 'intent evade' former Notes Advisory Committee state 'is restatement existing law.' preceding offense' Act June 1, 1872, 196, 198; R.S. 1035; 565. Cf. supra, pages 315, 322, 323, 842; 103, 293; Ekberg 167 380, 385. Indeed, separate inadequate them Andres State, 333 740, 68 880, 92 1055. 63. 440. 7206(1), 1954. Williams 168 382, 389, 92, 94, 42 509; Hutcheson, 312 219, 229, 61 463, 464, 85 788; 7(c), official customary citation alleged violated. Error omission ground dismissal reversal mislead prejudice.' Cole State Arkansas, 514, 644. Apparently leave open opportunity challenge motion 28 2255, 2255. agree appropriate, settled now. always follow information used. And grand drawn attorney, juries normally familiar statutes. officer seeks making felony, rare juror indeed sufficiently suggest better bring See, e.g., International Harvester Co. America Commonwealth Kentucky, 234 216, 34 853, 58 1284; Connally Construction 269 385, 391—392, 46 126, 127—128, 70 322.

Category: 0