Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Indiana Department of Revenue (D) believed that Smith (P) had not filed Indiana income tax returns for some years though required by law to do so. A subpoena duces tecum commanded to produce financial records, for the years 1984 through 1988. P was required by statute to keep such records. P refused on Fifth Amendment and other grounds to comply with the subpoena and was prosecuted for and convicted of failing to permit the examination. The court ruled that the records sought by the subpoena were required records and so could lawfully be compelled to be produced. P then applied for federal habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the claim. This appeal resulted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.