State v. Gagne
165 N.H. 363
| N.H. | 2013Background
- Defendant Karen Gagne, after a long friendship, lived with the victim and later assisted with bills and finances.
- In 2006 the victim moved to Pleasant View Retirement Home; defendant began handling bills, including rent payments.
- An $89,000 OM Financial annuity was liquidated and deposited into the victim’s Bow Mills account; a joint account was opened for bill paying.
- Between April and September 2007, the defendant withdrew over $180,000 from the joint account, transferring funds to her own accounts to pay her creditors.
- In October 2007 the defendant obtained a $90,000 loan from MCSB secured by the victim’s $100,000 CD; the loan was later paid off using the victim’s funds in May 2008.
- In late 2008–2009, proceeds from the sale of the victim’s Florida home were deposited into the joint account; withdrawals followed totaling over $45,000 and were used for the defendant’s creditors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for nine theft by unauthorized taking counts | State contends bills were handled without proper authorization for theft | Gagne argues the transactions were authorized or not unauthorized | Bow Mills and related transfers insufficient; joint account sufficient for others |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict on theft by unauthorized taking from the joint account | Funds in joint account were property of another and misappropriated | Coinvested account permits withdrawals with joint privilege | Funds in joint account held to be property of another; sufficient to convict on those counts |
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft by misapplication of property—legally obligated to pay Pleasant View rent | Defendant had a legal obligation as financial representative to pay rent | No explicit legal obligation established by contract | Sufficient evidence that defendant had an agreement or known legal obligation to pay rent |
| Sufficiency of evidence for misapplication involving designated funds from Florida home sale | Proceeds designated for rent were misapplied when used for defendant’s purposes | Funds deposited to joint account were not designated for Pleasant View rent | Sufficient evidence that proceeds were designated for rent and misused; value exceeds $1,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657 (N.H. 2011) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; review in light of favorable inferences)
- State v. Huffman, 154 N.H. 678 (N.H. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may support guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375 (N.H. 2011) (circumstantial evidence admissible; context-driven analysis)
- State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350 (N.H. 2013) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences governing verdicts)
- State v. Manon, 122 N.H. 20 (N.H. 1982) (interpreting property of another and joint property contexts)
- Com. v. Mescall, 592 A.2d 687 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (joint accounts and unauthorized withdrawals under property of another)