State v. Skarbinski, 2011 ME 65

Skarbinski was convicted after a jury trial in Cumberland County on one count of theft by deception, two counts of attempted theft by deception, and three counts of making and subscribing false tax returns.
The charges stem from refund requests for 2005, 2006, and 2007 asserting no taxable income despite substantial income.
The theft by deception involved a refund that was paid; the attempted theft by deception involved refund requests that were apparently not paid.
The trial court instructed the jury on tax law and related defenses, including how good faith beliefs about tax law could or could not constitute a defense.
On appeal, Skarbinski challenged the jury instructions, the State's closing argument, and the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding no prejudicial error and sufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did jury instructions on tax law prejudice the jury?	Skarbinski argued prejudicial error in tax-law instructions.	State contends instructions properly framed the law and preserved jury role.	No prejudicial error; instructions proper.
Was the good-faith belief defense properly addressed?	Skarbinski claimed his belief about tax law should be a defense.	State argues good-faith belief is not a defense to willful filing/evading taxes.	Good-faith belief not a defense; instruction proper.
Did the State's closing argument constitute prosecutorial error?	Skarbinski asserts inflammatory or improper arguments.	State contends closing argument was permissible interpretation of the evidence.	No prosecutorial error; fair trial.
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain each conviction?	Skarbinski contends insufficient evidence.	State argues evidence viewed in light most favorable to it supports all elements.	Evidence sufficient for all offenses.

United States v. Mikutowicz, 365 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2004) (tax-law instruction framework in federal context)
State v. Gantnier, 942 A.2d 1191 (Me. 2008) (reviewing instructions for prejudicial error)
State v. Dumond, 751 A.2d 1014 (Me. 2000) (instructional error review framework)
State v. Elliott, 987 A.2d 513 (Me. 2010) (good-faith belief not a defense)
State v. Greenleaf, 863 A.2d 877 (Me. 2004) (clarifies tax-defense principles)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1991) (good faith misunderstanding not a defense to willful failure to file)
Williams v. State Tax Assessor, 812 A.2d 245 (Me. 2002) (interprets federal adjusted gross income in state context)
State v. Schmidt, 957 A.2d 80 (Me. 2008) (prosecutor's argument and permissible appeal to jurors)
State v. Clark, 954 A.2d 1066 (Me. 2008) (standard of review for appellate challenges to trial conduct)