Sansone v. United States
380 U.S. 343 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense if, on the evidence presented, the factual issues to be resolved by the jury are the same for both the greater and lesser offenses, leaving no rational basis for a conviction on the lesser offense and an acquittal on the greater one.
Facts:
- In March 1956, James Sansone and his wife purchased a tract of land for $22,500 and simultaneously sold a portion of it for $20,000.
- In August 1957, Sansone sold another portion of the tract for $27,000.
- Sansone did not report the capital gain from the 1957 sale on his income tax return for that year.
- Sansone conceded that he understated his tax liability for 1957 by $2,456.48 as a result of not reporting the gain.
- Sansone initially contended the failure to report was not willful because he believed the cost of potential future repairs to a creek might eliminate his profit.
- During a Treasury investigation, Sansone provided a signed statement that he knew the 1957 sale should have been reported but did not do so because he was financially burdened and intended to report it and pay the tax in a future year.
Procedural Posture:
- James Sansone was indicted in federal district court for willfully attempting to evade federal income taxes for 1957, a felony under § 7201.
- At the conclusion of his trial, Sansone requested that the jury be instructed on the lesser-included offenses of willfully filing a false return (§ 7207) and willfully failing to pay tax (§ 7203), both misdemeanors.
- The trial court denied the requested instructions.
- The jury convicted Sansone of the § 7201 felony charge.
- Sansone appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant charged with felony tax evasion under § 7201 entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser-included misdemeanor offenses of willfully failing to pay taxes (§ 7203) or willfully filing a false return (§ 7207) when the only disputed factual element is willfulness and the evidence is such that the defendant is either guilty of the felony or not guilty of any offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Goldberg
No. A defendant is not entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction where there is no disputed factual element that distinguishes the greater offense from the lesser offense. The elements of the felony tax evasion (§ 7201) are willfulness, a tax deficiency, and an affirmative act of evasion. The lesser misdemeanor offenses, willfully failing to pay tax (§ 7203) and willfully filing a false return (§ 7207), require only willfulness and the prohibited act or omission. In this case, Sansone conceded the tax deficiency and his affirmative act of evasion (filing the false return). The only disputed element was willfulness. If the jury found his act was willful, he was guilty of both the felony and the misdemeanors. If the jury found his act was not willful, he was not guilty of any of the offenses. Therefore, there was no rational basis for the jury to acquit him of the felony but convict him of the misdemeanors, as the offenses 'covered precisely the same ground' on these facts.
Dissenting - Justices Black and Douglas
Yes. The dissenters believed there was sufficient evidence to require the trial court to give the requested jury instructions on the lesser-included misdemeanor offenses.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial limit on the lesser-included offense doctrine in the context of federal tax crimes. It clarifies that such an instruction is not a default right but depends entirely on the evidence presented at trial. The decision prevents a defendant from inviting the jury to exercise leniency by convicting on a lesser charge when the factual elements don't support such a distinction. This holding ensures that juries focus on resolving disputed facts rather than choosing punishments, reinforcing the 'all-or-nothing' nature of a prosecution where the only contested element, like willfulness, is common to both the greater and lesser offenses.
Unlock the full brief for Sansone v. United States