State v. Patrick Timothy McDonald, 157 A.3d 1080

Patrick T. McDonald, a real-estate attorney, was charged with five counts of embezzlement and one count of conspiracy for failing to disburse lender funds held in his IOLTA account between 2007–2008; alleged total misappropriations ≈ $166,303.
Several closing victims (including Aguilar and Tavarozzi) had lender wires sent to McDonald’s IOLTA; required payees (sellers or mortgage holders) were not paid and some claims were paid by the title insurer.
Mortgage Guarantee & Title (later First American) terminated McDonald’s agency after he failed an escrow review; its underwriter Green communicated concerns and sent a critical fax to McDonald documenting suspicious discrepancies.
McDonald’s paralegal and romantic partner, Kimberly Gostomski, testified that she prepared closings, sometimes handled bookkeeping and signed checks with McDonald’s permission; she admitted improper conduct and later pled nolo contendere to related charges.
Forensic audit by a certified fraud examiner showed large transfers from McDonald’s IOLTA to his business account and numerous personal expenditures funded by entrusted client monies; ~ $168,000 of client funds were not remitted to payees.
Jury convicted McDonald on three counts of embezzlement (counts 3, 4, 5) and one count of conspiracy (count 6); acquitted on counts 1 and 2. Trial justice denied motions for acquittal and for new trial; McDonald appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial justice abused discretion in denying McDonald’s motion for a new trial (weight of the evidence)	State: Evidence (bank records, forensic audit, witnesses) established entrustment, receipt, and intent to convert funds; trial justice properly reviewed as thirteenth juror	McDonald: Evidence shows negligent supervision and Gostomski’s access/role; trial justice miscredited witnesses and should have granted new trial	Affirmed. Trial justice conducted proper thirteenth-juror review, did not misconceive material evidence, and reasonably found intent to embezzle.
Whether admission of Green’s fax was improper (irrelevant/prejudicial hearsay)	State: Fax was part of chain of communications, relevant to notice and timeline showing McDonald’s awareness; probative value outweighed prejudice	McDonald: Fax expressed opinions about his credibility and was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant to intent	Affirmed. Trial justice did not abuse discretion under Rules 401/403; fax was relevant to intent/notice and not `enormously prejudicial`. The court did not decide whether the fax qualified as a business record.

State v. McKone, 673 A.2d 1068 (R.I. 1996) (elements of embezzlement require entrustment, lawful possession, and intent to appropriate)
State v. Oliveira, 432 A.2d 664 (R.I. 1981) (definitional authority on conversion/intent element)
State v. Watkins, 92 A.3d 172 (R.I. 2014) (trial justice acting as thirteenth juror and standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence motions)
State v. Clay, 79 A.3d 832 (R.I. 2013) (framework for thirteenth-juror review and deference to trial justice credibility findings)
State v. Clark, 974 A.2d 558 (R.I. 2009) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence arguments on post-trial motions)
DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999) (trial-justice discretion on relevance and prejudice under evidentiary rules)