United States v. Bernice Stephens-Miller
582 F. App'x 626
6th Cir.2014Background
- Bernice Stephens-Miller received long‑term disability benefits from Ohio Edison, the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) from the 1970s into 2008. An undercover BWC investigation (beginning 2006) and surveillance suggested she participated in and held herself out as owner/operator of boutiques (Devotice; later Devotice & La’Char) from the late 1990s through 2008.
- Defendant suffers chronic physical pain and long‑standing mental illness (including psychosis); her treating psychiatrist testified she was sometimes severely impaired but could appear lucid and functional at other times. Family and acquaintances gave mixed testimony about her role in the stores.
- Indicted for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), theft of Social Security disability benefits (18 U.S.C. § 641), and making materially false statements to a government official (18 U.S.C. § 1001). A competency evaluation found her competent to stand trial.
- A jury convicted on all counts after a multi‑day trial that included undercover visits, landlord and vendor testimony, surveillance, business cards, and documentary evidence (including a 1996 magazine identifying Devotice and Bernice).
- At sentencing the district court adopted a PSR loss/restitution figure of $170,047.47 (SSA, BWC, Ohio Edison) for conduct from 1996–2008, applied a 10‑level Guidelines enhancement, varied downward, and imposed concurrent 10‑month terms and three years supervised release.
- On appeal Stephens‑Miller challenged (1) refusal to give a good‑faith jury instruction for two counts, (2) sufficiency of the evidence as to mens rea, and (3) the district court’s loss and restitution calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Stephens‑Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by refusing to give a good‑faith instruction for the theft and false‑statement counts | Good‑faith instruction is limited to mail/wire/bank fraud under Sixth Circuit pattern; mens rea instructions given were sufficient | Trial court should have instructed good faith for all specific intent crimes; omission prejudiced defense | No error or harmless: pattern instructions limit good‑faith to fraud; jury was adequately instructed on mens rea and burden, and omission was not prejudicial |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to defraud/knowingly make false statements/steal government property | Surveillance, undercover admissions, landlords’ testimony, business records, and other circumstantial evidence permitted a reasonable juror to find knowledge/intent or recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt | Mental illness and expert testimony negated requisite mens rea; actions were medical/social, not fraudulent work | Affirmed: viewing evidence in government’s favor a rational juror could find required mens rea; recklessness sufficed for fraud intent in context |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in calculating loss and ordering $170,047.47 restitution | PSR loss figures were reasonable estimates based on trial evidence and defendant’s own statements; government proved losses by preponderance | Loss was overstated (no continuous work 1996–2008, no expert valuation, some benefits legitimately payable) and Boring/Waldren require offsets | Affirmed: district court made permissible reasonable estimate, found by preponderance that defendant worked during relevant period; restitution limited to period the jury convicted on (no Boring offset error here) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 (1976) (additional good‑faith instruction unnecessary where willfulness/mens rea properly instructed)
- United States v. McGuire, 744 F.2d 1197 (6th Cir. 1984) (harmless omission of good‑faith instruction where specific intent instructions adequately conveyed defense)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements of mail fraud include scheme to defraud, use of mail, and intent to deprive)
- United States v. Boring, 557 F.3d 707 (6th Cir. 2009) (restitution must exclude payments to which defendant was legitimately entitled)
- United States v. Damra, 621 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2010) (pattern instructions and comparing to patterns are relevant in reviewing jury instructions)