State v. JoshlinState v. Joshlin
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Knoll
KNOLL, Justice.*
The State charged David E. Joshlin (defendant), a Texas resident, by bill of information with insurance fraud (Count 2), a violation of
Defendant filed a motion to quash Count 2 on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the offense because the act constituting the offense, the filing of the insurance claim, occurred wholly outside Louisiana. At the hearing on the motion to quash, neithеr the State nor the defendant introduced evidence. When defendant sought appellate review of the trial court‘s adverse ruling, the parties jointly submitted the following stipulation of facts:
Mr. David Edward Joshlin [defendant] petitioned the 20th Judicial District Court in East Feliciana Parish on August 2, 1995 seeking a declaratory judgment and on December 5, 1995 testified as to the disappearance of Bennie Frank Joshlin and, thereafter, obtained a dеclaratory judgment ordering the State of Louisiana to issue a death certificate for Bennie Frank Joshlin; thereafter, David Edward Joshlin mailed claims for insurance benefits on the life of Bennie Frank Joshlin from the State of Texas to the State of Illinois.
In the State‘s response to defendant‘s discovery request, the State alleged that defendant initiated a plan in the mid-1980s to resurrect the identity of his long-deceased brother, Benniе. According to some family members, Bennie died as an infant in 1930. The alleged scheme invalid the opening of bank accounts and a business in Bennie‘s name, together with various vehicular purchases during the course of several years in the deceased brother‘s name. In addition, the State alleged that defendant obtained two insurance policies in Bennie‘s name which listed defendant as beneficiary.
The discovery respоnses further describe that defendant filed a report with the West Feliciana Parish Sheriff‘s Office, which detailed that Bennie was missing in 1991 after attempting to raft down the Mississippi River from Vidalia to St. Francisville. The discovery responses further state that defendant testified at a court hearing in East Feliciana Parish in December of 1995 about Bennie‘s disappearance on the river. Ultimately, after considering the evidence presented, the trial court issued a declaration of death for Bennie Frank Joshlin.3
The State contended that defendant utilized the trial court judgment which declared Bennie‘s accidental death to file claims from his Texas residence with two insurance companies, seeking life insurance proceeds as the beneficiary. The State further asserted that defendant provided false testimony at the hearing in the trial court which resultеd in a judgment declaring Bennie‘s death.
The trial court found that venue was proper in East Feliciana Parish, resting its holding on defendant‘s allegedly fraudulent conduct in that parish which included his filing of a civil suit to have his brother declared dead and defendant‘s alleged false testimony at that hearing. The court of appeal, First Circuit, concluded otherwise, finding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the offense because defendant effected the elements of the insurance fraud in Texas, not Louisiana. The appellate court premised its holding on a finding that defendant submitted the claims for the proceeds to the accidental death policies from his residence in Texas. State v. Joshlin, 98-1538 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/12/99), 737 So.2d 965 (unpublished opinion). We granted the State‘s writ application to consider the propriety of the appellate court‘s decision. State v. Joshlin, 99-1004 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 622. We reverse and remand.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Reiterating this legal behest,
The locus delicti of the charged offense “`must be determined from thе nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.‘” Cabrales, 524 U.S. at 6-7, 118 S.Ct. 1772 (quoting United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, 703, 66 S.Ct. 1213, 90 L.Ed. 1529 (1946)). In effectuating this inquiry, a court must first identify the conduct of the offense and then discern the location of the commission of the criminal acts. United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 119 S.Ct. 1239, 143 L.Ed.2d 388 (1999); see Cabrales, 524 U.S. at 6-7, 118 S.Ct. 1772; Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 635-37, 81 S.Ct. 358, 5 L.Ed.2d 340 (1961); United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 408-09, 78 S.Ct. 875, 2 L.Ed.2d 873 (1958). In the identification of the relevant conduct, a court may look to the verbs used in the statute to determine the nature of the substantive offense. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280, 119 S.Ct. 1239. Regardless, the Court stated:
While the “verb test” certainly has value as an interprеtative tool, it cannot be applied rigidly to the exclusion of other relevant statutory language. The test unduly limits the inquiry into the nature of the offense and thereby creates a danger that certain conduct prohibited by statute will be missed.
Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280, 119 S.Ct. 1239.
The particular question before us is whether in
Statutory interpretation commences with the language of the statute and progresses with the assumption that each statutory term has “a particular, nonsuperfluous meaning.” Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 145-46, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995); Cat‘s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Dept. of Finance, 98-0601 (La.10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186 (noting that the starting point for interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself); First Nat‘l Bank of Boston v. Beckwith Machin. Co., 94-2065 (La.2/20/95), 650 So.2d 1148 (noting that courts should give effect to all parts of a statute and not adopting а construction making any part superfluous or meaningless, if that result can be avoided).
Turning to the legislation at hand, a review of the statutory history shows that with the enactment of 1992 La. Acts 707 the Louisiana Legislature added the provisions of
acts or omissions committed by any person who, knowingly and with intent to defraud:
(a) Presents, causes to be presented, or prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be presented to or by any insurer, ... any oral or written statement which he knows to contain materially false information as part of, or in support of, or denial of, or concerning any fact material to or conceals any information concerning any fact material to the following:
* * *
(iii) A claim for payment or benefit pursuant to any insurance policy. (emphasis added).
[A]ny notice, statement, proof of loss, bill of lading, receipt for payment, invoice, account, estimate of property damages, bill for services, diagnosis, prescription, hospital or doctor records, test results, x-rays [sic], or other evidence of loss, injury, or expense.
A. Any person who, with the intent to injure, defraud, or deceive any insurance company, or any insured or other party in interest, or any third party claimant:
(1) Presents or causes to be presented any written or oral statement including computer-generated documents as part of or in support of or denial of a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy, knowing that such statement сontains any false, incomplete, or fraudulent information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim; ...
(2) ... is guilty of a felony and shall be subjected to a term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not to exceed five years, or a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars, or both, on each count.
Our concern with the appellate court‘s resolution of the issue before us is its focus on the active verb “presents” in the statute to the exclusion of the verb phrase “causes to be presented” which immediately follows and encompasses the preparatory acts of defendant‘s alleged scheme. The appellate court‘s reading of
Not only does our reading give meaning to each statutory term, it further results in a construction which is consistent with the provisions of
Under the provisions of
In the present case, although the State did not present direct evidence that defendant provided CNA with a copy of the judicial proceedings when he presented his claim for accidental death benefits, the record, nonetheless, contains a copy of the claim form defendant provided CNA. On that form, defendant indicated the following typed statement in thе section which required the claimant to provide a copy of the verdict of an inquest, if conducted, into the insured‘s death: “Court Declaration of Death.” If the State develops the facts that are alleged and it is shown that defendant‘s act in securing a declaration of death from the Twentieth Judicial District Court in East Feliciana Parish was based upon false or fraudulent information, we find that such act in this State “caused [a claim] to be presented” to CNA which falls within the ambit of proscription decried in
In reaching a contrary conclusion, the appellate court relied upon State v. Frank, 355 So.2d 912 (La.1978), a case that we find clearly distinguishable. In Frank, the defendant, a Baton Rouge attorney, was charged in Orleans Parish with forgery and theft of money. After defendant secured the release of succession funds and obtained a cashier‘s check from a New Orleans bank, he forged the heirs’ signatures and deposited the check in his bank account in Baton Rouge. After the State filed criminal charges in Orleans Parish, defendant moved tо quash the bill of information, contending that venue was improper in Orleans Parish. We agreed, noting that intent was not a separate element of the offense and that the forgery, the sole act of the crime, did not occur in Orleans Parish. Although we do not now withdraw from that opinion, we find that the language of
We likewise find defendant‘s reliance on State v. Pollard, 215 La. 655, 41 So.2d 465 (1949), misplaced. In Pollard, the defendant was charged with theft. At the time of that prosecution, Article 67 of the Criminal Code defined theft as “the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, praсtices or representations.” In stark contrast to Pollard which rested on the criminalization of the taking, not
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court as it relates to Count 2 of the bill of information is reversed and set aside, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmеd.
REVERSED, IN PART, AND REMANDED.
LEMMON and KIMBALL, JJ., and CALOGERO, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
LEMMON, J., Dissenting.
The majority decision starts with the faulty premise that the issue is whether the Legislature, in enacting La.Rev.Stat. 22:1243 (the penal statute under which defendant was charged), “intended to punish” acts preliminary to the written or oral statement presented in support of the insurance claim. In my view, the issue is whether the Legislature (regardless of its intent) criminalized such preparatory acts in the express words of the рenal statute.
The majority refers to Section 1242, which includes, in the definition of “fraudulent insurance act,” the preparation with intent to defraud of a written or oral statement, knowing that it will be presented in support of an insurance claim. However, the Legislature did not provide a criminal penalty for committing a “fraudulent insurance act,” as defined in Section 1242. The analysis must focus on Section 1243, which provides the penalty оnly for the conduct expressly proscribed by that section, and that conduct does not include Section 1242(1)(a)‘s words “prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be presented.”
When the focus is on the correct statute,
Generally, one presents something by bringing the thing to someone‘s notice or introducing the thing into someone‘s presence, and one causes something to be presented by acting indirectly and having another person make the presentation or submission of the thing. It is a far stretch of the English language to say that one causes a statement to be presented to an insurance company by performing acts that lead up to the preparation of the statement which may (or may not) be presented to the insurance company at a later date (at which time the crime is committed). At the very least, Section 1243 is ambiguous as to whether defendant‘s conduct in obtaining an alleged fraudulent death certificate in Louisiana falls within the purview of the statute, and the doctrine of lenity requires the statute to be construed in favor of defendant. See State v. Becnel, 93-2536 (La.5/31/96), 674 So.2d 959; State v. Piazza, 596 So.2d 817 (La. 1992).
The Legislature arguably could have criminalized the obtaining of a fraudulent death certification for the purpose of making a false life insurance claim.1 However, the Legislature did not make such conduct criminal in Section 1243, and no other conduct prohibited by the charged statute has been shown to have occurred in Louisiana.2
KIMBALL, J., Dissenting.
In my view, the majority in this case mistakenly reasons that a showing of fraudulent activity meets the requirement of
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.
CALOGERO, C.J., Dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment reversing the court of appeal‘s decision concerning Count 2 of the bill of information. I believe that David Joshlin‘s act of procuring a judgment in East Feliciana Parish is not a preparatory act encompassed by the phrase “caused to be presented.”