State v. Hulbert
2021 Ohio 2298
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Tina M. Hulbert was the business office manager at Van Wert Manor and handled residents’ payments, deposits, and entries in the PointClickCare (PCC) system; each PCC user had an individual password.
- A temporary manager and regional staff audited accounts and found lateral transfers between resident accounts, missing cash/check deposits, and checks that appeared forged; many transactions were performed under Hulbert’s PCC password.
- Police investigation and internal audit produced copies of questioned checks, signature samples, trust-account ledgers, and summaries showing losses affecting at least 49 residents who were elderly or disabled; total misappropriations for those residents fell between $37,500 and $150,000.
- A grand jury indicted Hulbert on two counts of theft from an elderly/disabled person and multiple counts of forgery (some counts later merged or dismissed); a jury convicted her on the remaining counts.
- The trial court sentenced Hulbert to an aggregate five-year prison term; she appealed arguing denial of Crim. R. 29 (sufficiency), general insufficiency, and that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court erred denying Crim. R. 29 on Count 1 (theft totaling $37,500–$150,000) | State: records, missing deposits, lateral transfers under Hulbert’s PCC password, resident incapacity, and no evidence of consent support theft elements. | Hulbert: no evidence residents withheld consent; as office manager she had implied authority to handle funds. | Court: Denial affirmed; viewed evidence in favor of prosecution, elements satisfied, jury could infer lack of consent (regulatory requirements and witnesses support). |
| 2) Whether the trial court erred denying Crim. R. 29 on forgery counts (Counts 2–5,7,8) | State: questioned checks differed from sample signatures, residents/families denied signing, Hulbert endorsed/cashed checks, amounts within statutory ranges. | Hulbert: insufficient proof she forged signatures or lacked authority to endorse; challenged attribution. | Court: Denial affirmed for Counts 2,3,5,7 (Counts 4 and 8 merged into Count 1 for sentencing so not separately considered). Evidence sufficient to support convictions. |
| 3) Whether convictions generally were supported by legally sufficient evidence (including Count 9, theft < $1,000) | State: check for $800 to Schumm had no deposit/receipt, Schumm cognitively impaired, family denied consent, investigator found no record of deposit. | Hulbert: challenged sufficiency and attribution. | Court: Evidence sufficient to convict on Count 9 and other charged counts; third assignment overruled. |
| 4) Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: documentary and testimonial evidence (ledgers, PCC logs, checks, witness testimony) support reliability of verdicts. | Hulbert: argued jury misweighed evidence and credibility. | Court: Convictions not against manifest weight; jury did not lose its way and no miscarriage of justice. Judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (criminal-rule-29 review is same as sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sufficiency is a legal question; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Mendoza, 137 Ohio App.3d 336 (standard for manifest-weight review)