Opinion ID: 661484
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constructive Amendment to or Variance from the Indictment

Text: 17 Wisenbaker next urges that the district court permitted the prosecution to amend constructively the indictment during the trial, a per se reversible error. 17 Alternatively, he contends that the proof adduced at trial varied from the allegations in the indictment, which would constitute reversible error if he was prejudiced by the variance. 18 We reject both of Wisenbaker's theories because both are based on the same misreading of the indictment. 18 Wisenbaker contends that the indictment charged him only with evading his own taxes, and that the proof that he assisted others (i.e. his customers) in evading their taxes constituted an amendment or variance. 19 We do not find the language of the indictment susceptible to the restrictive reading Wisenbaker wishes to impose on it. The relevant portion of both counts of the indictment charges that: 19 [T]he defendant HOUSTON M. WISENBAKER, JR., did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully attempt to evade and defeat federal excise taxes ... by making and causing to be made false invoices; by using numerous entities to conceal the purchase of tax-free diesel fuel; by dealing in currency and cashier's checks; by failing to make a Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return, Form 720, ... as required by law, with any proper officer of the Internal Revenue Service; and by other means. 20 20 The indictment contains no terms restricting it to an allegation that Wisenbaker failed to pay his own taxes. It fairly encompasses the government's theory that Wisenbaker also violated I.R.C. Sec. 7201 by evading any taxes his customers owed but did not pay because of Wisenbaker's false assurances that he had already paid the taxes. The proof adduced at trial constituted neither a variance from nor an amendment of the terms of the indictment, and the district court did not err in admitting it. 21