Opinion ID: 857325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Date Discrepancy Between Indictment and Proof

Text: Did Not Constitute Plain Error Aside from his sufficiency challenge, Scheuneman also claims that the government constructively amended the indictment by arguing and proving at trial that he evaded his income tax obligations for 2003 and 2004 even though the prefatory language of the Counts 1 and 2 described dates in 2002 and 2003. Although Scheuneman couches his argument as a constructive indictment, his issue is better understood as a variance, an event that arises “when the facts proved at trial differ from those alleged in the indictment.” United States v. Longstreet, 567 F.3d 911, 918 (7th Cir. 2009). Because Scheuneman did not raise his variance claim in the district court, we review for plain error only. United States v. Haynes, 582 F.3d 686, 698 (7th Cir. 2009). As an initial matter, Scheuneman has not demon- strated a material variance between the relevant dates associated with the charges in the indictment and the government’s proof at trial. Counts 1 and 2 accurately identified 2003 and 2004 as the years in which Scheuneman incurred tax obligations, specified the amount of his taxable income in each of these years, and alleged that he evaded the tax by failing to report his income on his tax return for 2003 and 2004. At trial, the government presented its case in a manner entirely consistent with these critical temporal allegations and presented an overwhelming volume of evidence to establish his guilt on these bases. These consistencies prevent Scheuneman from succeeding on his variance claim. No. 11-1554 13 But even if a variance occurred, it was harmless and certainly did not constitute plain error. In general, a variance will not constitute reversible error unless it “change[s] an essential or material element of the charge so as to cause prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Cina, 699 F.2d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). An essential element of a crime “is one whose specification with precise accuracy is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior and thus the court’s jurisdiction.” United States v. Auerbach, 913 F.2d 407, 411 (7th Cir. 1990). No such precision is required to establish a violation of the tax evasion statute; the government need not necessarily prove that a certain underlying act took place on a specific date to secure a conviction for tax evasion. See Collins, 685 F.3d at 656 (reciting elements of tax evasion). Where, as here, a specific date does not form a crucial component of the offense, a variance in the dates charged in the indictment and those proved at trial will generally be harmless if the government “prove[s] that the offense was committed on any day before the indictment and within the statute of limitations.” United States v. Leibowitz, 857 F.2d 373, 378 (7th Cir. 1988). The government’s overwhelming evidence that Scheuneman evaded his income tax obligations by failing to report his income on his tax returns for the 2003 and 2004 tax years precludes us from finding that a plain error occurred. The lack of prejudice to Scheuneman resulting from the clerical error only reinforces our conclusion. Although Scheuneman contends that the date discrepancy prevents us from knowing the basis for the jury’s con14 No. 11-1554 viction, the arguments, evidence, and jury instructions presented at trial demonstrate otherwise. In presenting its case, the government steadfastly maintained that Scheuneman should be found guilty of Counts 1 and 2 for evading his tax obligations for 2003 and 2004. This proposition was further reinforced by the district court’s preliminary and final instructions to the jury. These instructions clearly stated that the jurors needed to find that Scheuneman had a tax deficiency outstanding on April 15 of the year following 2003 and 2004 in order to convict him on Counts 1 and 2. Taken together, the consistency of the government’s case and the clarity of the court’s instructions demonstrate that Scheuneman suffered no prejudice. We also note that Scheuneman did not quarrel with the time frame for the govern- ment’s evidence of tax evasion at trial. No plain error occurred.