473 P.3d 204
Utah Ct. App.2020Background:
- On March 27–28, 2016 LeVasseur crashed his car; he told his friend he’d been making a drifting video and showed her a video that stopped when the crash occurred.
- Around 12:25 a.m. LeVasseur called his insurer and lowered deductibles/added collision; he called police at 12:57 a.m. and reported swerving to avoid a deer.
- He reported the loss to the insurer (claiming ~1:00 a.m.) shortly before 2:00 a.m.; the insurer flagged the claim because policy changes and the claim occurred close in time.
- Investigators obtained phone logs and call recordings; the friend later told investigators she had lied to police and that the accident preceded the policy-change call.
- LeVasseur was charged with second-degree-felony insurance fraud for knowingly presenting false material statements; the jury convicted and he appealed, arguing witness testimony was inherently improbable and the evidence was insufficient.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | LeVasseur's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the friend’s testimony was inherently improbable such that the court must disregard it | Friend’s testimony was plausible, consistent with call logs/recordings and other circumstantial evidence; credibility is for the jury | Friend’s testimony contained material contradictions and was patently false and uncorroborated | Court affirmed: inconsistencies did not render testimony inherently improbable; credibility questions for jury; corroborating evidence forecloses Robbins challenge |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support conviction for insurance fraud (knowingly presenting false material statements) | Cumulative direct and circumstantial evidence (friend’s trial testimony, phone logs, call recordings, vehicle evidence, timing) permitted a reasonable jury to infer knowledge and intent to defraud | Evidence was speculative and did not prove he knowingly submitted false statements about timing/details of the crash | Court affirmed: some evidence supported every element; reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (court may disregard inherently improbable testimony only when credibility is so weak no reasonable jury could convict)
- State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (inconsistencies plus lack of corroboration can warrant reversing a conviction)
- State v. Gonzalez, 345 P.3d 1168 (Utah 2015) (standard for reviewing directed verdict: affirm if some evidence supports verdict)
- State v. Ashcraft, 349 P.3d 664 (Utah 2015) (defer to jury; reasonable inferences may sustain conviction)
- State v. Skinner, 457 P.3d 421 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (Robbins–Prater inherent-improbability relief is narrow; corroboration defeats the claim)