MICHAELS ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Michaels Enterprises and its president were convicted of federal violations for failing to maintain and produce alcoholic beverage purchase records required by federal tax law. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case because the lower court erroneously refused to consider the sufficiency of evidence, despite the record showing that petitioners had properly moved for acquittal at the close of all evidence.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner James A. Michaels, Jr., is president of petitioner Michaels Enterprises, Inc., a corporate retail dealer in alcoholic beverages. Petitioners were convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Missouri on both counts of a two-count indictment. The first count charged them with failure to “produce” or to “preserve” certain purchase records, in violation of 72 Stat. 1400, 26 U. S. C. § 5603 (b)(5). The second count charged them with failure “to keep” certain purchase records or “make required entries therein” in violation of 72 Stat. 1400, 26 U. S. C. § 5603 (b)(1). Petitioner James A. Michaels, Jr., was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and fined $1,000 on the first count;* he was fined an additional $1,000 on the second count. Petitioner Michaels Enterprises, Inc., was fined $1,000 on each of the two counts. The critical issue, as we see it, is whether the record contains sufficient evidence of violations of the two counts to support the imposition of nonconcurrent sentences. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit refused to consider the “question of sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict,” on the ground that petitioners “did not move for an acquittal at the close of all the evidence.” 321 F. 2d 913, 917. The record clearly shows, however, that petitioners did move for “judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence,” as well as “at the close of the government’s case.”
The writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence.
It is so ordered.
*
This is the maximum penalty provided by the statute.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michaels Enters., Inc. v. United States, 340 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1965)…dge. This ease is again before this Court “for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the evidence” to sustain the “imposition of nonconcurrent sentences” for appellants’ found violation of § 5603(b) (5) and (b) (1), Title 26, U.S.C.A. After remand (376 U.S. 356, 84 S.Ct. 783, 11 L.Ed.2d 755) this appeal was unconditionally restored to the docket of this Court. .Thereafter, “added briefs” were filed and rearguments made. Neither by added briefs nor at reargument do appellants in anywise impugn the previous…
Authorities Cited
- Michaels Enters., Inc. v. United States, 321 F.2d 913 (8th Cir. 1963)