State v. Alfred Fairbanks
Background
- Fairbanks, a Pullman, WA dentist, was investigated after a complaint that he billed Idaho Medicaid for fillings not performed on patient A.S.; investigation included examinations by State-retained dentist Dr. Coppess of A.S. and J.G.
- The State charged Fairbanks with multiple counts and proceeded to trial on four felony provider-fraud counts alleging billed composite fillings were not performed on specified teeth of A.S. (three counts) and J.G. (one count).
- At trial Dr. Coppess (examining dentist) testified he found no evidence—by tactile exam with an explorer and review of same-day x-rays—that the challenged teeth had been drilled or filled; the State also introduced billing records showing Medicaid payments for composite fillings.
- Fairbanks’s sole defense witness (Dr. Staley) reviewed the x-rays and records and testified some images were poor quality and certain composite materials may be radiolucent, making fillings hard to see on x-ray.
- Jury convicted Fairbanks on all four counts. After conviction Fairbanks arranged for A.S. to be reexamined and produced different x-rays/close-up photos showing what he claimed were fillings; he moved for a new trial based on that newly discovered evidence.
- The district court denied the new-trial motion, finding Fairbanks failed the Drapeau criteria—specifically that he lacked diligence in attempting to locate A.S. before trial—and entered judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of provider fraud | State: Billing records plus Coppess’s examinations provided substantial evidence that fillings were not performed | Fairbanks: Coppess outdated, didn’t review all records/old x-rays, relied on inferior x-ray tech; testimony insufficient | Affirmed: Evidence was substantial; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | State: New x-rays/photos posted after trial were discoverable pretrial; Fairbanks failed Drapeau diligence prongs | Fairbanks: Post-conviction x-rays/photos and expert opinion are new, material, and likely to produce acquittal; counsel tried to locate A.S. but couldn’t | Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion—Fairbanks failed to show due diligence in locating A.S., so Drapeau requirements not met |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685, 551 P.2d 972 (Idaho 1976) (sets four-part test for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Ames, 112 Idaho 144, 730 P.2d 1064 (Ct. App. 1986) (discusses diligence requirement for locating witnesses and newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Herrera-Brito, 131 Idaho 383, 957 P.2d 1099 (Ct. App. 1998) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Knutson, 121 Idaho 101, 822 P.2d 998 (Ct. App. 1991) (appellate deference to jury on credibility and weight of evidence)