People v. Kirnon, 91 N.Y.2d 941 (1998)
r
r
A jury verdict acquitting defendants of filing false sales and compensating use tax returns is not repugnant to a verdict convicting them of offering a false instrument for filing if the jury could have found that the defendants offered the false returns for filing but did not “make and subscribe” them.
r
r
Summary
r
The Kirnons underreported liquor sales at their family store, failing to remit over $200,000 in sales taxes. They were convicted of multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing and grand larceny, along with one count of filing a false tax return. The Appellate Division dismissed the tax law count but affirmed the remaining convictions. The Kirnons argued that the jury verdict was repugnant because they were acquitted on several other tax law counts. The New York Court of Appeals held that the verdicts were not repugnant, as the jury could have found they offered false returns without necessarily making and subscribing to them.
r
r
Facts
r
The defendants, the Kirnons, owned and operated a family store in Long Island.
r
Over a four-year period, they underreported the amount of liquor they sold.
r
As a result, they collected over $200,000 in sales taxes that they did not remit to the State of New York.
r
The defendants were charged with multiple counts related to the underreporting and failure to remit sales taxes.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Kirnons were convicted in the trial court of 15 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, one count of grand larceny in the second degree, and one count of filing a false sales and compensating use tax return.
r
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by dismissing each defendant’s conviction on the Tax Law count, and otherwise affirmed.
r
The Kirnons appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the jury verdict was repugnant.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a jury verdict convicting the defendants of offering a false instrument for filing, and acquitting them of several Tax Law counts of filing false sales and compensating use tax returns, is repugnant.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the jury could have found that defendants offered the false returns for filing but did not “make[] and subscribe [ ]” them, therefore defendants’ acquittal of the Tax Law counts was not “conclusive as to a necessary element” of the offering a false instrument for filing charges.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals rejected the Kirnons’ repugnant verdict argument. The court reasoned that the jury could have rationally distinguished between the elements of offering a false instrument for filing and the specific tax law violations.
r
Specifically, the court noted that the jury could have found that the Kirnons