THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. EDMONDSON, APPELLANT.
No. 00-1438
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted March 27, 2001—Decided July 25, 2001.
92 Ohio St.3d 393 | 2001-Ohio-210
COOK, J.
CERTIFIED by thе Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 18061.
{¶ 1} The appellant, Michelle Edmondson, was convicted on two counts of theft by deception for receiving government benefits after she submitted false information to the Montgomery County Department of Human Services (“MCDHS“) on her benefits application. Had she been truthful on her application, Edmondson would have remained eligible for benefits, but in an amount less than she actually received. This case asks us to decide whether Edmondson has stolen the total amount of benefits that MCDHS gave her following the deception or only the amount exceeding what she would have been eligible to receive had she provided truthful information.
I
{¶ 2} During a four-year period between September 1990 and October 1994, Edmondson received nearly $13,000 in financial assistance from the Ohio Aid to Dependent Children (“ADC“) program and food stamps from the federal government worth almost $9,000. The benefits received by Edmondson were the maximum amounts allotted under both the ADC and food stamp programs. At no time during this period did Edmondson inform the MCDHS, which administered
{¶ 3} In 1994, MCDHS began to investigate whether Edmondson had been employed while receiving government assistаnce. Edmondson admitted to a welfare fraud investigator that she had worked at various jobs while collecting ADC funds and food stamps. She also acknowledged that she failed to report her employment to MCDHS despite being aware of her responsibility to report any employment she obtained.
{¶ 4} A grand jury indicted Edmondson on two counts of theft by deception in violation of
{¶ 5} Before trial, the parties stipulated that Edmondson collected government benefits between Oсtober 1990 and September 1994 without informing MCDHS of her employment during this period. As a result of the parties’ stipulations, the case proceeded to a bench trial limited to determining the value of the benefits stolen by Edmondson. The prosecution contended that Edmondson stole the total amount of benefits she received after misrepresenting her employment status. In contrast, Edmondson contended that she could not be guilty of stealing the full amount of benefits because, by MCDHS‘s own admission, she would have been eligible for assistance (albeit in a lesser amount) even if she had reported her employment. Thus, Edmondson theorized that the dollar value of the theft was limited to the amount exceeding what she would have been received had she truthfully reported her employment. The MCDHS calculated this “overpayment amount” to be $2,415 in ADC benefits and $2,211 in food stamps.
{¶ 7} The state obtained leave to appeal the trial court‘s decision under
II
{¶ 8} Before reaching the merits of Edmondson‘s appeal, we note that the procedural posture of this case presents an oddity: our decision has no practical effect on this appellant. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that jurisdiction in this court is proper.
{¶ 10} Although the statе‘s appeal had no effect on Edmondson‘s case, the court of appeals had the statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction over it.
{¶ 11} Though unusual, this procedural history poses no jurisdictional bar to our review. The court of appeals validly exercised jurisdiction over the state‘s appeal under
III
{¶ 12} The elements of theft by deception appear at
“(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:
“* * *
“(3) By deception.”
{¶ 13} The parties do not dispute that the state proved these essential elements in Edmondson‘s case. Thus, there is no dispute that Edmondson knowingly obtained control over property (viz., ADC cash assistance and food stamps) with purpose to deprive MCDHS of it. Nor is there any dispute that Edmondson knowingly deceived MCDHS by misrepresenting her employment status. Sеe
{¶ 14} The only dispute in this case involves the degree of theft offense Edmondson committed.
{¶ 15} In support of her argument, Edmondson relies on State v. Luna, supra, the case certified as being in conflict with the court of appeals’ decision in this case. In Luna, the trial court convicted a defendant of theft of ADC benefits by deception. On his benefits application, the defendant had falsely stated that he was neither an owner nor buyer of any real prоperty; in fact, the defendant was the vendee on a land contract executed prior to his application for benefits. The state argued that the sum of benefits received was the product of theft. The court of appeals disagreed and explained that “the relevant inquiry is * * * what benefits did appellant receive as a result of the deception that he would not have received had he been truthful.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 94 Ohio App.3d at 662, 641 N.E.2d at 753. The сourt therefore concluded that the defendant could have stolen only the amount “over and above what he would have received had he been truthful.” Id. at 663, 641 N.E.2d at 753.
{¶ 16} We disagree with the legal theory advanced by Edmondson and the Luna court and instead endorse the conclusion reached by the Second District Court of Appeals. Edmondson‘s argument that she stole only the “overpayment amount” relies upon the premise that she owned or possessed (and therefore did not steal) the non-overpayment portion of the benefits she received. But this premise is incorrect. Edmondson was not entitled to any benefits until MCDHS actually determined her eligibility based on the information disclosed on her application. See
{¶ 17} In contrast to the rule advocated by Edmondson, the court of appeals’ decision in this case comports with the statutory elements of theft by deception.
{¶ 18} The straightforward application of these elements supports the state‘s legal theory and undermines Edmondson‘s position. Edmondson obtained benefits only after she failed to be truthful about her employment status. In turn, MCDHS relied on the information Edmondson provided when it approved her benefits application and awarded over $5,000 in ADC funds and food stamps before learning of Edmondson‘s deception. The state does not have to provе the additional fact, as Edmondson‘s rule would require, that the accused obtained benefits for which he or she was not otherwise eligible absent the deception. See State v. Robins (1995), 233 Conn. 527, 530-531, 660 A.2d 738, 739 (interpreting Connecticut‘s larceny statute as requiring state to prove only that defendant obtained benefits by filing false claim and not the additional element that defendant obtained benefits to which he was not entitled). Imposing this additional burden on the state would add an element that does not appear in the theft statute.
{¶ 19} Moreover, the rule advocated by Edmondson would potentially invite mischief. Recipients could provide false information to enhance their level of benefits knowing that the overpayment amount was the maximum for which they could be held criminally responsible if the authorities detected the dеception.
{¶ 20} The court of appeals correctly rejected Edmondson‘s claim that she stole only the “overpayment amount.” The correct valuation of the benefits stolen
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., and F.E. SWEENEY, J., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment.
RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.
{¶ 21} Edmondson was entitled to a certain amount of welfare benefits. She provided false information and received welfare benefits in excess of the amount to which she was entitled. The state prosecuted her for theft by deception of the entire amount she received, which includes the amount to which she was entitled.
{¶ 22} Unlike the majority, I would rather engage in a legal fiction, that entitlement is a form of ownership, than embrace the absurd. The theft offense shоuld be based on the difference between her entitlement and what she actually received. To do otherwise is ridiculous.
{¶ 23} The majority is concerned about the potential “mischief” of welfare recipients receiving more benefits than they are entitled to. The possibility that people otherwise entitled to benefits might be too frightened to pursue them and the possibility that the state might ovеrreach in prosecuting these cases is more troubling. Surely the state has more pressing business than prosecuting our society‘s most downtrodden for receiving benefits to which they are entitled. I dissent.
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.
{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority‘s decision to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
{¶ 26} The theft-by-deception statute,
{¶ 27} Nor do any Department of Human Services regulations require repayment of benefits to which the defendant is entitled.
{¶ 28} Instead of the majority‘s interpretation, I would adopt the reasoning of State v. Luna (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 653, 641 N.E.2d 747, the case with which Edmondson is in conflict. Luna held thаt the relevant inquiry is what benefits the defendant would have obtained had he or she been truthful. Id., 94 Ohio App.3d at 662, 641 N.E.2d at 753. In Luna, a government assistance applicant was convicted of theft by deception and other crimes. The court held, “Although appellant may have received excess benefits as a result of the deception, the record is devoid of any evidence showing that but for the alleged deceрtive answer
{¶ 29} In other theft cases, we do not measure the amount of the theft as the majority does in this case. For example, suppose an employee works eight hours one day but by deception convinces the employer that he or she worked ten hours and, consequently, the employer pays the employee for ten hours of work. We would find the employee guilty of theft for only the two hours of pay that he or she obtained fraudulently. The law does not require the employee to forfeit all wages to which he or she is entitled. I fail to see why this case should be any different.
{¶ 30} Therefore, I would hold that in a prosecution of theft of government benefits by deception, the value of property for purposes of determining the seriousness of the crime under
{¶ 31} I do not believe that this interpretation of the law would encourage government assistance recipients to lie in order to obtain benefits to which they are not otherwise entitled. Contrary to the majоrity‘s contention, serious penalties do attach in addition to a criminal charge and possible prison. The defendant becomes ineligible for further assistance until repayment, hardly an incentive for mischief as claimed by the majority.
{¶ 32} In this case, the defendant received $12,829 in Aid to Dependent Children (“ADC“) benefits, an overpayment of $2,415, and $8,836 in food stamps, an overpayment of $2,211. She would have received $17,039 in ADC and food stamps even when taking her wages into consideration. In my view, the law requires us to allow her to keep that to which she is legally entitled, for we are not seeking to punish qualified recipients or their children, for whom government assistance provides a means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care. See Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287.
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Davies, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Arvin S. Miller, Montgomery County Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.