Opinion ID: 497966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: burden of proof instruction on tax counts

Text: 57 At the beginning of the charge the district court gave a general burden of proof instruction, requiring that the Government prove Richerson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With regard to the tax counts the district court specifically instructed the jury that: 58 In order to establish that offense, the Government must prove both of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 59 First: That substantial income tax was due and owing from the Defendant in addition to that declared in his tax return; and 60 Second: That the Defendant knowingly and willfully attempted to evade or defeat such tax. 61 The district court followed this instruction with various definitions including A taxpayer must show that a transfer of property is out of 'detached and disinterested generosity' in order to be classified as a gift. The test for determining whether the property is a gift is the donor's intent. (Emphasis added). The four italicized words, [a] taxpayer must show are clearly incorrect. The defendant does not have the burden to prove anything in a criminal case. 27 Again, however, because neither party objected to these four words at trial, the plain error doctrine governs our review. A court must consider jury instructions as a whole. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973) (a single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge). Plain error is, as stated above, error so obvious that our failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings and result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Bi-Co Pavers, Inc., 741 F.2d 730, 735 (5th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Howton, 688 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1982)). Plain error must seriously affect substantial rights and have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 17 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1047 n. 14, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). No certainty exists in decisions of this character. Our conclusion is, however, that these four words, in the context of a charge spanning thirty-six pages of the record, could not have had enough impact to have affected the jury's decision. 28 There are very few cases tried without some error. It is for this reason that our jurisprudence has injected into the process of finding reversible error the requirement that the error must be plainly plain at least where no objection was raised at trial. If we hold that plain error existed in this case it would be difficult to believe that any erroneous words uttered by any court would not be plain error. As a result we must also affirm the defendant's conviction on the tax counts. 62 AFFIRMED.