State v. Burgett, 2019 Ohio 5348

Background

Monika Burgett brought her medically complex son J.B. from Texas to Cincinnati for treatment; Texas providers reported that Burgett had exaggerated symptoms, misrepresented herself as a physician, and sought outside care against clinic guidance.
At Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center, clinicians observed inconsistencies between Burgett’s symptom reports and the child’s presentation; this reporting led to more invasive treatment (a different feeding tube, narcotics, 24-hour oxygen) later found unnecessary when J.B. was treated on observation after a temporary separation.
Burgett raised $26,381 on a GoFundMe campaign that she promoted with representations that J.B. had a brain tumor, was terminal, and lacked insurance; she deposited the funds into her personal account.
A jury convicted Burgett of child endangering (R.C. 2919.22(A), first‑degree misdemeanor) and telecommunications fraud (R.C. 2913.05(A), elevated to a third‑degree felony based on amount obtained).
The trial court imposed community control and ordered restitution of $26,381 to GoFundMe; Burgett appealed the convictions and the restitution order.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions (including that the fraud benefit exceeded $7,500) but reversed the restitution order and remanded for the trial court to apply the Ohio Supreme Court’s analysis in State v. Allen to determine whether GoFundMe is a statutorily compensable "victim" and, if so, its economic loss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution: May the court order restitution to GoFundMe under R.C. 2929.18?	GoFundMe was named in the indictment and suffered economic loss from the fraudulent campaign, so restitution to GoFundMe is proper.	GoFundMe does not qualify as a "victim" under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and thus cannot receive restitution.	Reversed and remanded: appellate court ordered the trial court to apply the Allen framework to decide whether GoFundMe is a statutory victim and to quantify economic loss.
Sufficiency of evidence to elevate telecommunications fraud to felony (amount threshold)	Corporate GoFundMe records established total donations of $26,381, satisfying the >$7,500 threshold to raise the offense to a third‑degree felony.	The state did not sufficiently prove the amount by admissible evidence or link the receipts to criminal benefit.	Overruled defendant's challenge: evidence (GoFundMe records) sufficed to show benefit exceeded $7,500; conviction affirmed.
Admissibility of out‑of‑state (Texas) medical testimony	Texas providers’ testimony was relevant to J.B.’s medical history and to show knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake in Burgett’s reporting and conduct.	Texas testimony was irrelevant to Ohio charges and prejudicial; it should have been excluded.	Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the testimony; it was relevant and the court gave limiting instructions.
Other‑acts / propensity concerns from Texas medical testimony	Testimony was admissible for non‑propensity purposes (knowledge, absence of mistake, plan).	Testimony impermissibly presented other‑acts evidence to show propensity and denied a fair trial.	Defendant forfeited specific objection; plain‑error review fails—no plain error and no reversal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73, 2014-Ohio-1966, 15 N.E.3d 818 (standards for admitting other‑acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
State v. Williams, 143 Ohio St.3d 521, 2012-Ohio-5695, 983 N.E.2d 1278 (Evid.R. 403 balancing and admissibility principles)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508 (abuse‑of‑discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002) (plain‑error test)
Ali v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 328, 2004-Ohio-6592, 819 N.E.2d 687 (new judicial rulings apply to pending cases)
State v. Evans, 32 Ohio St.2d 185, 291 N.E.2d 466 (1972) (same principle regarding prospective application of new law)