United States v. Gary Primm, Jr., No. 22-1299 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was found guilty by a jury on a three-count indictment charging him with failure to file a tax return and tax evasion for personal returns in 2014 and 2015. After considering and denying Defendant’s post-trial motions for a new trial and acquittal, the district court sentenced Defendant to 36 months imprisonment and ordered him to pay over $350,000 in restitution. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it (1) allowed for the expert testimony of the Special Agent (SA), (2) denied Defendant’s motions for a new trial and acquittal, and (3) ruled for the government on a Jencks Act issue.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court found that here, the SA did not directly testify to Defendant’s mental state but rather to the modus operandi of tax evasion criminals. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the SA’s expert testimony. Further, the court found that had the SA testified about specific cases that he had worked on in the past, these statements may have been related. But the general testimony given by the SA describing common types of tax evasion does not trigger Jencks Act disclosure of all statements from prior investigations related generally to tax evasion. Finally, the court explained that regardless of whether the government was required to prove that UAD was a C corporation or “a corporation not expressly exempt from tax,” the court held that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to convict on the indictment.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Gruender and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err when it allowed a special agent to testify as to common methods of tax evasion as the court has previously allowed similar testimony from law enforcement officers; claim of a Jencks Act violation rejected as the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's request for all statements made by the special agent while investigating tax evasion cases; the government need not turn over such background or collateral information and the materials were unrelated to the agent's testimony in this case; claim of Giglio violation rejected; the government was not obligated to provide a witness's tax returns as such documents are not statements under the Jencks Act; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for tax evasion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.