Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marilyn ANTOINE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered February 15, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of filing a false return for personal income and earnings tax (Tax Law § 1801[b] ), and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence warranted the conclusion that defendant filed her “zero return” tax returns, seeking refunds for all the taxes she paid, without a good faith belief in the bizarre theories underlying her claim for refunds. The question of whether defendant had such a good faith belief was one to be resolved by the jury (see Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617). The evidence that defendant did not hold such a good faith belief included, inter alia, evidence that defendant lied to a colleague about preparing to do research on the theories for her “zero return,” when in fact she had already begun to prepare the return; that she filed amended returns under the same theories after having been informed by the taxing authority that the theories were invalid; that she was aware, as a result of her presence during the execution of a search warrant, that the tax preparer who had advised her to employ these theories was under criminal investigation; and, that shortly after the search warrant incident, she abandoned these theories and claimed exemption from taxation under new, but equally bizarre theories.
The court's limited Allen-type charge (Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528) was appropriate, since it was encouraging rather than coercive, and was sufficiently balanced, particularly when taken together with the main charge (see People v. Ford, 78 N.Y.2d 878, 880, 573 N.Y.S.2d 442, 577 N.E.2d 1034).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 29, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)