State v. Arnold
2017 Ohio 209
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Marvin Arnold, a Toledo city employee (2002–2013), listed ex-wife Carlene as a dependent on his 2002 health-insurance application; city provided and paid for her medical, dental, and prescription claims.
- Arnold and Carlene had a 2001 divorce (final Oct. 17, 2001); Arnold later remarried Carlene in 2013.
- A 2011 dependent audit and subsequent checks showed Carlene had received benefits post-divorce; city sought reimbursement and later terminated Arnold after administrative disciplinary proceedings.
- Toledo police investigator quantified city-paid benefits for Carlene at $46,643.23 and interviewed Arnold; Arnold claimed he had "forgotten" the divorce and believed he remained married.
- Arnold was indicted for one count of insurance fraud (R.C. 2913.47), convicted by a jury, sentenced to five years community control, and ordered to pay restitution of $46,643.23.
- On appeal Arnold raised (1) admission of administrative-hearing findings as prejudicial, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) insufficiency/manifest-weight/Crim.R. 29 error.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Arnold's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of administrative-hearing findings | Testimony about the administrative finding was admissible background and not prejudicial | Testimony allowed jury to infer guilt from prior administrative finding; prejudiced trial | No plain error; admission did not clearly affect outcome; assignment overruled |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object; failure to request entrapment instruction) | Trial counsel’s choices were reasonable; no prejudice shown | Counsel erred by not objecting and not requesting entrapment instruction | No Strickland violation: no prejudice from admission and no factual basis for entrapment instruction |
| Sufficiency of evidence / Crim.R. 29 / Manifest weight | Evidence (application statements, divorce record, benefits paid, investigation) proved elements of insurance fraud beyond a reasonable doubt | Lacked specific intent to defraud; conviction against evidence and weight | Evidence sufficient; jury verdict not against manifest weight; Crim.R. 29 denied appropriately |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio 1988) (presumption of attorney competence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187, 449 N.E.2d 1295 (Ohio 1983) (definition and burden for entrapment defense)