United States v. Clark

122 F. Supp. 150, 46 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 233, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3155
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama
DecidedJune 8, 1954
DocketNo. 13532
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 F. Supp. 150 (United States v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Clark, 122 F. Supp. 150, 46 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 233, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3155 (N.D. Ala. 1954).

Opinion

GROOMS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on motion to dismiss the indictment.

On November 27, 1953, the United States filed a complaint before the United States Commissioner in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging therein that on or about January 15, 1948, the defendant did willfully, and knowingly attempt to defeat and evade a large part of the income tax due and owing by him for the calendar year ending December 31, 1947. After the filing of this complaint, defendant demanded a hearing before the United States Commissioner. This hearing was granted on February 2, 1954, and upon the completion thereof the defendant was discharged. The grand jury was in recess-at the time but reconvened on February 23, 1954, and on February 26, 1954, returned the indictment sought to be dismissed.

The defendant contends that Count One of the indictment is barred by the-six-year statute of limitations. Title 26, U.S.C.A. § 3748. The United States takes the position that the facts here presented bring this case within the following provision of the section referred, to:

“Where a complaint is instituted before a commissioner of the United States within the .period above limited, the time shall be extended until. [151]*151the discharge of the grand jury at its next session within the district.” The reported cases fail to reveal that

the courts have applied the quoted provision of the statute in a case involving a discharge by a commissioner. A discharge by a commissioner is not equivalent to an acquittal. The toll of the bar is conditioned upon the institution of the complaint and not its disposition. The complaint in this case was instituted within the six-year period. The indictment was returned by the grand jury at its next session. The court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss should be overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Sidney A. Grayson
416 F.2d 1073 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Florida
165 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Arkansas, 1958)
United States v. Freeman
165 F. Supp. 121 (S.D. Indiana, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 F. Supp. 150, 46 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 233, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clark-alnd-1954.