State v. Marcum
2017 Ohio 7517
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Lisa R. Marcum (caretaker) was convicted after a bench trial of insurance fraud, theft from an elderly person, tampering with records, theft (checks), and bribery; concurrent prison terms and restitution of $28,220.67 were imposed.
- The victims were elderly spouses William and Willa Stamback; Kathleen Ely had been their longtime POA until revoked in early 2013.
- Marcum became a caregiver for the Stambacks in late 2012, obtained powers of attorney and (according to some documents) was named a contingent beneficiary in replacement wills; family members later revoked Marcum’s powers and appointed Scott Schaurer POA.
- Bank records, cancelled checks, online check orders, titles/odometer documents, life‑insurance claimant communications, witness testimony (caregivers, hospice, bank employees, family), and admissions to insurers were presented by the State showing large withdrawals, checks payable to associates, a car transfer, and an insurance claim/disputed beneficiary paperwork.
- Defense testified Marcum provided care, acted at the Stambacks’ direction, received gifts (car), and disputed many allegations; the trial court credited the State’s witnesses and found the convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/manifest weight for insurance‑fraud (R.C. 2913.47(B)(1)) | State: Marcum presented false/deceptive claim materials, altered beneficiary/addendum documents and sought insurer proceeds; testimony and documents show intent/knowledge to defraud | Marcum: insurer claim and beneficiary paperwork legitimate or mistakenly presented; lacked mens rea | Court: Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient; credibility resolved for State; not against manifest weight |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight for theft from an elderly person (R.C. 2913.02(A)(2)) | State: withdrawals and checks signed/ordered by Marcum were beyond scope of consent and diverted funds to associates and herself | Marcum: payments were legitimate caregiver payroll, gifts, or for the Stambacks’ needs; acted at William’s direction | Court: Conviction affirmed — transactions, relationships, and witness testimony support beyond‑consent theft finding |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight for tampering with records (R.C. 2913.42) | State: title and odometer documents (and related paperwork) were notarized/altered to effect transfer of vehicle; Marcum uttered tampered documents | Marcum: transactions and documents reflect gifts and ordinary transfers; denies forging or tampering | Court: Conviction affirmed — court credited notary/Clerk testimony that documents were tampered/irregular and Marcum lacked privilege to utter them |
| Theft (checks) and bribery (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); R.C. 2921.02(C)) | State: online-ordered checks, unauthorized checks deposited/cashed for associates, and payment to witness (Gillette) to influence testimony show theft and bribery | Marcum: denied ordering checks, claimed laptop theft or third‑party acts, said $100 was a loan/food money and not a bribe | Court: Conviction affirmed on both — bank correspondence, check orders, witness testimony and commissary deposit evidence supported theft and bribery convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency of the evidence from manifest‑weight review and establishes the standard for manifest‑weight challenges)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (articulates when a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence)