UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
SAM L. MACCORKLE, APPELLANT
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 district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment due to delay and that the jury instruction on 'willfulness' was correct.
Appellant was convicted of willful failure to file income tax returns. He appealed, arguing undue delay in indictment and trial, and an erroneous jury…
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 Failure To File Income Tax Returns cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM;
Appellant Sam MacCorkle was convicted of willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 1959 to 1963' in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. On appeal, he presses principally two of his multiple claims of error. He contends that the District Court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment because of undue delay both in bringing the original indictment and in bringing the defendant to trial once the indictment had been returned. We do not find that the asserted delay constituted an unreasonable prolongation of either the original investigation or the normal processes of indictment and trial. Consequently, we conclude that the District Court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment.
The appellant also contends that the court committed error in its instruc tion to the jury on the meaning of “wilfullness,” which is an element of this statutory offense. We find, however, that the court’s instruction on the issue was not only correct, but that it was substantially the same as the request for instruction tendered by the defendant.
We have considered the remainder of the appellant’s claims of error and find them without substance. The conviction is therefore
Affirmed.