State v. Jerry Allan Hill
154 Idaho 206
Idaho Ct. App.2012Background
- Hill was convicted by jury on three counts of grand theft involving misappropriation of company funds over 2004–2007 from Jordan, Hill and Hall Inc.
- The scheme included unauthorized cash withdrawals and non-business expenditures charged to the firm’s credit cards, paid by company checks, and misclassified as business expenses.
- A CPA audit concluded Hill misappropriated about $332,533.14, with a restitution figure later narrowed to $290,768.29 for the time period charged to the jury.
- Hill received a unified sentence of six years per count, to be served concurrently, and a fourteen-year probation with restitution of $290,768.29 split equally between Brad Jordan and Patrick Hall.
- Hill challenged two aspects on appeal: (1) admissibility of brad Jordan’s testimony about the effect of Hill’s conduct on Hall, and (2) the restitution amount and how it was calculated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of Jordan on Hall | State asserts limited relevance to company collapse andHall’s finances. | Hill contends testimony is irrelevant and inflames the jury. | Harmless error; cannot reverse; evidence minimally prejudicial given overwhelming guilt evidence. |
| Restitution amount | State proves economic loss caused by Hill’s conduct; restitution appropriate. | Certain losses were civil disputes not caused by Hill’s criminal conduct; improper offset with home sale proceeds;Hill’s share reduction improper. | Restitution affirmed in full; supported by substantial evidence; no offset from home sale; not limited by Hill’s ownership stake. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 597, 977 P.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1998) (relevance standard for evidence; de novo review)
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (2010) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Yager, 139 Idaho 680, 85 P.3d 656 (Ct. App. 2004) (harmless-error appraisal in evidentiary context)
- Schultz, 148 Idaho 884, 231 P.3d 529 (Ct. App. 2008) (restitution purpose and standard)
- Shafer, 144 Idaho 370, 161 P.3d 689 (Ct. App. 2007) (causal connection required for restitution)
- Hamilton, 129 Idaho 938, 934 P.2d 201 (Ct. App. 1997) (abuse of discretion review in restitution)
- Wardle, 137 Idaho 808, 53 P.3d 1227 (Ct. App. 2002) (restitution calculation factors and victim focus)
- Bushi v. Sage Health Care, PLLC, 146 Idaho 764, 203 P.3d 694 (2009) (fiduciary duties among LLC members; restitution rationale)
- Ellis v. Butterfield, 98 Idaho 644, 570 P.2d 1334 (Ct. App. 1997) (equitable considerations in restitution)
- Sword v. Sweet, 140 Idaho 242, 92 P.3d 492 (Ct. App. 2004) (unclean hands and restitution principles)
- Day (People v.), 958 N.E.2d 300 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (illustrative restitution rationale in multi-party firm context)
- State v. Smith, 144 Idaho 687, 169 P.3d 275 (Ct. App. 2007) (restitution factual sufficiency standard)