United States v. Victor Antolik
696 F. App'x 165
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Victor Antolik was convicted by a jury of making and subscribing false tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) and corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the IRS (26 U.S.C. § 7212(a)).
- At trial Antolik sought to admit revised tax returns he prepared before trial; the district court excluded those returns.
- Antolik argued exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense and he also challenged the district court’s refusal to give two proposed jury instructions.
- He separately challenged the district court’s oral restitution pronouncement as ambiguous or improperly imposed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the right-to-present-defense claim de novo (with harmless-error review) and admissibility rulings for abuse of discretion, and ultimately affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of revised tax returns | Antolik: returns show corrected liability and support defense; should be admitted to present complete defense | Government: returns irrelevant to elements of § 7206(1); admissibility is within district court discretion | Exclusion affirmed; tax-liability evidence not legally relevant to § 7206(1) prosecutions and exclusion was not an abuse of discretion |
| Right to present a complete defense | Antolik: exclusion violated Sixth Amendment and deprived him of a complete defense | Government: defendant has no right to present irrelevant evidence; court may exclude marginally probative evidence under Rule 403 balancing | No Sixth Amendment violation; trial court permissibly excluded evidence as irrelevant or outweighed by other factors |
| Jury instruction on reasonable doubt | Antolik: requested instruction equating reasonable doubt to a higher standard (e.g., "near certainty") | Government: court’s pattern reasonable-doubt instruction is correct and sufficient | Rejected; court may use Fifth Circuit pattern instruction and need not accept equating reasonable doubt to "near certainty" |
| Refusal to give second proposed instruction | Antolik: proposed instruction reflected correct law and should have been given | Government: proposed instruction was not a correct statement of law | Denied; appellant failed to show instruction was correct law, so refusal was not abuse of discretion |
| Restitution order ambiguity | Antolik: oral pronouncement created ambiguity as to scope of restitution | Government: written judgment controls and clarifies sentence | Affirmed; any ambiguity resolved by written judgment clarifying restitution as part of supervised release |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2008) (right to present a defense reviewed de novo)
- United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 1999) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Johnson, 558 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1977) (tax-liability evidence not legally relevant to § 7206(1) prosecutions)
- United States v. Flores-Martinez, 677 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2012) (no right to present irrelevant testimony)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (scope of admissible defense evidence limited by law)
- United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (probative value can be outweighed by other factors)
- United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009) (approving Circuit’s pattern reasonable-doubt instruction)
- United States v. Jones, 663 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1981) (reasonable-doubt instruction precedents)
- United States v. Bowen, 818 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard for refusing proffered instructions)
- United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (instruction refusal not an abuse absent correct-statement-of-law showing)
- United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (written judgment controls over ambiguous oral pronouncement)
- United States v. Westbrooks, 858 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2017) (restitution as part of supervised release clarified in judgment)
Affirmed.