Commonwealth v. Goss, 2014 Ky. LEXIS 150

Goss was convicted of two counts of identity theft under KRS 514.160 and found to be a second-degree persistent felony offender.
Allegations: she allegedly opened credit card accounts and obtained checks in her ex-husband Vance Garrison’s name, and filed a false tax return in her daughter Syreeta Garrison’s name.
The Court of Appeals reversed both convictions, concluding insufficient proof of identity theft and granting a directed verdict of acquittal.
This Court granted discretionary review and affirmed in part and reversed in part; one conviction (daughter) was upheld, the other (ex-husband) was reversed.
The trial judge had granted a directed verdict on the daughter’s credit-card-related counts but allowed other charges to go to the jury; Goss pleaded guilty to PFO status with concurrent seven-year terms.
Evidence included: (i) ex-husband’s claim of multiple credit-card accounts opened in his name; (ii) a checking account with his name and the checks addressed to his former address; (iii) a March 2008 tax return filed in Syreeta’s name reflecting Goss’s information; and (iv) testimony on e-filing processes and access to information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there sufficient evidence to sustain the ex-husband identity theft conviction?	Goss's son? or Goss argues insufficiency; the Commonwealth says circumstantial proof suffices.	Goss contends the proof failed to directly link her to credit-card fraud and that some acts fall outside identity theft statute.	Conviction for ex-husband credit-card fraud reversed; lack of evidence tied to that theory; palpable error.
Is there sufficient evidence to sustain the daughter identity theft conviction via the tax return?	Commonwealth argues circumstantial evidence links Goss to the false return.	Goss contends evidence is insufficiently connected to the crime beyond mere opportunity.	Conviction for daughter’s tax-return identity theft sustained; sufficient circumstantial linkage.

Commonwealth v. O'Conner, 372 S.W.3d 855 (Ky.2012) (circumstantial proof permissible to prove identity theft)
Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1991) (directed-verdict standard; clearly unreasonable to find guilt)
Bussell v. Commonwealth, 882 S.W.2d 111 (Ky.1994) (circumstantial proof sufficient if not clearly unreasonable)
Acosta v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 809 (Ky.2013) (palpable error; insufficiency of proof constitutes manifest injustice)
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 405 S.W.3d 439 (Ky.2013) (circumstantial evidence standard; motive plus opportunity insufficient alone)
Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky.2010) (unanimity concerns when multiple theories of crime are charged)