STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HOLLY M. KACZMAREK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 5-12-32
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY
December 23, 2013
2013-Ohio-5658
Aрpeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. 2011 CR 327
APPEARANCES:
Deborah Kovac Rump for Appellant
Mark C. Miller and Alex K. Treece for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Holly M. Kaczmarek (“Kaczmarek”), appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, finding her guilty of insurance fraud and sentencing her to community control. Kaczmarek contends that the trial court erred by: (1) denying her motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of the State’s evidence; and (2) entering a judgment that was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Kaczmarek also argues that the prosecutor in her case engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
{¶2} On December 27, 2011, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted Kaczmarek on one count of insurance fraud in violation of
{¶3} A jury trial of this matter commenced on July 16, 2012, and ended on July 17, 2012. The State’s first witness was Officer Tim Brown of the Findlay Police Department. Officer Brown testified that he was working on June 25, 2011, and was dispatched around 8:30 p.m. to Arbors Parkway, Apt. 33, for a possible unlawful entry in progress. When Officer Brown arrived, he spoke with Kaczmarek and her son. Kaczmarek told Officer Brown that when she opened the garage, she noticed that the door going into her apartment was open. When she
{¶4} Officer Brown testified that he did not recall seeing any damage to Kaсzmarek’s door which would have indicated that someone forced his or her way into the apartment. As to the damage done to Kaczmarek’s apartment, Officer Brown testified that there was Canola oil on her floor and black spray paint all over the walls, inside the refrigerator, freezer, dishwasher, and washing machine. There was also spray paint in the bathroom, on the bedroom walls, and on Kaczmarek’s bed, television, and dresser. There were nail рolish stains on the walls of Kaczmarek’s closet and her jewelry case was opened with jewelry thrown about her floor.
{¶5} Officer Brown then testified that Kaczmarek told him that she left her apartment around 6:00 p.m. that night to pick up her son. When she came back to her apartment around 8:30 p.m., she noticed that her door was open and called the police. Kaczmarek told Officer Brown that she had purchased the black spray
{¶6} Officer Brown also testified that Kaczmarek provided a written statement on June 27, 2011. The statement contained a section which described the incident and also listed items that had been taken or destroyed. Among the items that were stolen were rings, watches, and three different bags.
{¶7} The next witness to testify for the State was Cathy Harris, the property managеr for the Arbors of Findlay. Harris testified that Kaczmarek contacted her on June 27, 2011, and told Harris that her apartment had been broken into and vandalized. Harris stated that Kaczmarek told her that she had bought the spray paint cans at Wal-Mart during the day on June 25, 2011. Harris testified that the apartment complex had to pay over $3,000 to restore Kaczmarek’s apartment to its original condition.
{¶8} Detective Jay Myers of the Findlay Police Department was the next witness to tеstify for the State. Detective Myers testified that he was assigned to process the recovered evidence that Officer Brown collected. However, Detective Myers was not able to recover any usable fingerprints from the evidence. Detective Myers then testified that he contacted the loss prevention department of the Tiffin Avenue Wal-Mart. He then obtained the video of Kaczmarek purchasing the cans of spray paint. The transaсtion took place at 7:11 p.m.
{¶9} Detective Myers testified that Kaczmarek had told him that she had insurance through Homesite Insurance and that Patricia Reynolds was the agent handling the claim. Kaczmarek also told Detective Myers that she had received $1,000 for the jewelry that was stolen during the break in and also received some money for furniture that was damaged, although she did not disclose a specific amount. Detective Myers testified that he spoke with Reynоlds and also stated that he learned that Kaczmarek had received $16,000 from Homesite Insurance. Detective Myers then confronted Kaczmarek about the inconsistency in her story about when she bought the spray paint. After being informed about the existence of the Wal-Mart video, Detective Myers testified that he and Kaczmarek had the following discussion:
A: I told her that times weren’t matching. That she kept saying it was early i[n] the morning she bought the paint, yet the video and informаtion I received from Wal-Mart clearly states it was 7:10 p.m. Just before – shortly before the police were called and this damage occurred. She then said she remembered now what happened. She stated that she was at Wal-Mart buying the paint and [her son] called wanting a ride from the mall. So she returned to her apartment at the Arbors. She had to use the restroom. Went into the garage and left the paint on a blue tub in the garage. Then she went to pick [her son] uр. Went to McDonalds. They ate, and then she returned home and found the damage.
Trial Tr., p. 237-38.
{¶10} The State next called Daniel Lerma, a locksmith with Bill’s Lock Service. Lerma stated he looked at the lock on Kaczmarek’s apartment that
{¶11} Benjamin Wilkerson was the next witness for the State and stated that he was an Asset Protection Manager with Wal-Mart. Wilkerson testified that the video showing Kaczmarek purchasing spray paint cans at 7:11 p.m. was accurate and there was no indication of any alterations.
{¶12} Michael Hollar then testified for the State. Hollar testified that he is employed as an independent field adjuster for Apex Adjusting. Hollar clarified that he does not actually work for an insurance company, but insteаd acts as a third party who is hired to handle certain claims. Hollar testified that Homesite Insurance insures homes and provides renters insurance in Ohio and that he had worked on over 500 claims for Homesite Insurance in Ohio. Hollar also stated that Homesite Insurance has offices in Akron, Ohio, and in Massachusetts. Hollar also testified:
A: No. What we’re required to do is, we ask the insured to create a list of all the damaged items throughout the home. Once she creates that risk [sic] we also inform her please collect any receipts that she might have. If she’s not able to collect any receipts we ask her to at least take the time to find, you know, go through if she can, get the make, model and year of any product. If she’s not sure exactly the make and model but she can decide what the year is, the insurance company, they have their o[w]n department for content. They work at their own – what they have for their own product to determine.
Q: Is the purpose there to get reimbursement for the loss?
A: It is.
Id. at p. 295-96.
{¶13} At the close of the State’s evidence, Kaczmarek moved for a
{¶14} During Kaczmarek’s case-in-chief the following relevant evidence was adduced. Javier Ramos, Kaczmarek’s son, testified that in the evening of June 25, 2011, he was at the Findlay Mall with a friend. They needеd a ride to get home, so Ramos called his mother to pick him and his friend up. Ramos testified that his mother told him that she had to stop at her apartment before she could pick him up. Then, ten minutes later, Kaczmarek picked him up from the Findlay Mall, went to McDonalds, and then returned to Kaczmarek’s apartment. When Ramos
{¶15} The defense then rested and Kaczmarek renewed her motion for acquittal, which the trial court denied.
{¶16} On July 17, 2012, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the insurance fraud charge. A pre-sentence investigation was ordered, and sentencing was originally set for September 26, 2012. At that hearing, Kaczmarek informed the court thаt she was no longer satisfied with her attorney’s representation, and that she wanted new counsel. Kaczmarek’s attorney then requested to withdraw, and that request was granted. The court continued the sentencing hearing so that Kaczmarek could meet with her new attorney.
{¶17} On October 29, 2012, a sentencing hearing was held. The court sentenced Kaczmarek to community control, with specific sanctions which required Kaczmarek serve seven days in jail and that Kaczmarеk pay restitution in the amount of $16,000. A judgment entry reflecting this was filed that same day, October 29, 2012.
{¶18} Kaczmarek then timely appealed this judgment, presenting the following assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO
Assignment of Error No. II
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR INSURANCE FRAUD WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
Assignment of Error No. III
THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT WHEN HE IMPROPERLY ADVISED THE JURY THAT MULTIPLE ISSUES, INCLUDING THE STATUS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY, WERE NOT IN DISPUTE AND OTHERWISE MISSTATING THE LAW.
{¶19} In her first assignment of error, Kaczmarek argues that the trial court erred in denying her
Standard of Review
{¶20}
{¶21} When an appellate court reviews a record for sufficiency, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384, 2005–Ohio–2282, ¶ 47. Sufficiency is a test of adequacy. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997). Accordingly, the question of whether the offered evidenсe is sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law. State v. Wingate, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26433, 2013-Ohio-2079, ¶ 4.
R.C. 2913.47(B)(1)
{¶22} Kaczmarek was charged with insurance fraud in violation of
(B) No person, with purpose to defraud or knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud, shall * * *:
(1) Present to, or cause to be presented to, an insurer any written or oral statement that is part of, or in support of, an application for insurance, a claim for payment pursuant to a policy, or a claim for any other benefit pursuant to a pоlicy, knowing that the statement, or any part of the statement, is false or deceptive[.]
Further, “insurer” is defined:
[A]ny person that is authorized to engage in the business of insurance in this state under Title XXXIX of the Revised Code, the Ohio fair plan underwriting association created under section 3929.43 of the Revised Code, any health insuring corporation, and any legal entity that is self-insured and provides benefits to its employees or members.
Recapitulation of Evidence
{¶23} Bearing this statutory language in mind, we turn our attention to the evidence рresented at trial. The record reveals that the State did not present sufficient evidence to overcome Kaczmarek’s motion of acquittal.
{¶24} The only testimony that was elicited regarding whether Homesite was authorized to engage in the business of insurance of Ohio came from Michael Hollar, a claims adjuster for Apex Adjusting, not Homesite Insurance. He merely testified that he has handled claims on behalf of Homesite Insurance before and that he knows Homesite Insurance has an office in Akron, Ohio. However, there was no representative of the company called to testify, and no certification of registration with the Ohio Secretary of State demonstrating licensing in Ohio. The State relied on circumstantial evidence that Homesite, in fact, conducted business
The state’s evidence falls short of proving the necessary factors establishing that Indiana Insurance is an “insurer” as defined in
R.C. 2913.47(A)(3) . Indeed, the fact that Indiana Insurance performs the activities as noted no more establishes that Indiana Insurance is licensed to transact business in Ohio than driving a car establishes that the driver is a licensed driver. Each of the noted activities may be performed by a non-licensed insurer, provided the entity successfully avoids detection under Ohio’s insurance laws.
(Citation omitted.) State v. Kirkland, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 97APA07-873, 1998 WL 164999, * 9 (Apr. 9, 1998). Accordingly, the State’s evidence on this issue is woefully inadequate.
{¶25} While the dissent attempts to rely on our previous decision of State v. Eggeman, 3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-04-07, 2004-Ohio-6495, we find it distinguishable from the present case. First, in Eggeman, the defendant did not properly preserve his
{¶26} Secondly, in Eggeman, this court held that there was no manifest miscarriage of justice because the State had presented evidence that showed: (1) the defendant’s insurance agent was located in his town; and (2) the defendant’s receipt of insurance proсeeds. Eggeman at ¶ 27. This court also considered the fact the defendant never challenged the “insurer” issue at trial. Id. Here, there was no testimony that Kaczmarek’s insurance agent was located in Findlay, Ohio. To the contrary, testimony was elicited from Detective Myers that Kaczmarek’s insurance agent, Patricia Reynolds, was “out of Boston[, Massachusetts].” Trial Tr., p. 231. Also, Kaczmarek repeatedly challenged whether Homesite Insurance is a proper insurer as definеd by the Ohio Revised Code.
{¶27} Further, in State v. Hancock, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA99-05-048, 2000 WL 1336317 (Sept. 18, 2000), the decision this court relied upon in Eggeman, is likewise distinguishable from Kaczmarek’s case. In Hancock, the court relied on the fact that: (1) the insurance company in question was a domestic company rather than an out of-state insurance company; and (2) the State offered
{¶28} Therefore, while the State may hаve produced some circumstantial evidence that Homesite Insurance conducted business in Ohio, it failed to produce sufficient evidence that would prove Homesite Insurance was authorized to conduct business in Ohio.
{¶29} Furthermore, the State failed to present any evidence as to any fraudulent claim allegedly submitted to the alleged insurer. No document was produced that demonstrated what claims had been submitted or which portion of the claims was supposedly fraudulent. The State wants to rely on the fact that
{¶30} Even if one accepts that Kaczmarek vandalized her own apartment, there is no evidence of a claim being submitted for damage caused by the vandalism.
{¶31} Accordingly, we sustain Kaczmarek’s first assignment of error.
Assignments of Error II & III
{¶32} In light of our decision that the trial court erred when it overruled Kaczmarek’s motion for acquittal, Kaczmarek’s second and third assignments of error hаve been rendered moot, and we decline to address them. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
{¶33} Having found error prejudicial to Kaczmarek in the particulars assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WILLAMOWSKI, J., concurs.
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HOLLY M. KACZMAREK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 5-12-32
{¶30} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion for two reasons. First, I would find that circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct on the issue of whether Homesite Home Insurance was licensed to dо business in the State of Ohio, and that the State produced a significant amount of circumstantial evidence regarding that issue. Second, I would find that the State also produced a significant amount of circumstantial evidence regarding whether Kaczmarek submitted a fraudulent claim to Homesite.
{¶31} The majority cites State v. Kirkland, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 97APA07-873 (Apr. 9, 1998), for the proposition that circumstantial evidence is disfavored in proving whether an insurance company is licensed to do business in the State of Ohio. In State v. Eggeman, 3d Dist. No. 5-04-07, 2004-Ohio-6495, ¶¶ 24-27, we distinguished Kirkland, effectively finding that circumstantial evidence was as probative as direct on this issue. See Eggeman at ¶¶ 24-27 (wherein we cited favorably the Twelfth District Court of Appeals decision in State v. Hancock, No. CA99-05-048, 2000 WL 1336317 (Sept. 18, 2000), which also distinguished Kirkland and found that circumstantial evidence was as probative as direct on this
{¶32} In this case, the State produced a significant amount of circumstantial evidence as to whether Homesite Home Insurance was licensed to do business in the State of Ohio. Michael Hollar testified that he was an independent insurance adjuster that had worked on over 500 claims in Ohio on behalf of Homesite. (Tr. at 290). Hollar testified that Homesite insured homeowners and renters in Ohio, and that Homesite covered Kaczmarek in this case. (Id. at 291). Hollar also testified that Homesite had an office in Akron, Ohio. (Id.)
{¶33} In addition to Hollar’s testimony, Hollаr’s report was introduced into evidence and that report contained a claim number for the “Insured: Holly [Kaczmarek],” a policy number, a date of loss, and a location in Findlay Ohio, all indicating that there was effective coverage for Kaczmarek in Ohio. (State’s Ex. 35). The report also listed the “applicable coverages,” and the effective dates of the policy. (Id.)
{¶34} The trial court considered all of this evidence in overruling Kaczmarеk’s
{¶35} Next, I also disagree with the majority’s finding that the State produced insufficient evidence regarding whether a fraudulent claim was submitted to Homesite. Michael Hollar testified that he worked the “claim” after being sent a file for a vandalism/theft claim by Homesite. A jury could properly infer from that fact that a claim was submitted.
{¶36} Moreover, Dеtective Myers testified that he spoke with the insurance company and learned that Kaczmarek received $16,000 from the company. (Tr. at 240). Detective Myers also testified that Kaczmarek herself informed him she had received $1,000 for her “stolen” jewelry and an undisclosed amount for the remaining damage. (Id.) In addition, Detective Myers testified that he had a conversation with Kaczmarek, wherein Kaczmarek informed him that she only had $3,000 left from the insurance compаny, which would at the very least allow the jury to presume Kaczmarek had been paid $3,000 by the insurance company. (Id.)
{¶37} All of this testimony points to Kaczmarek being paid from an insurance claim. It seems entirely logical that if a claim had been worked by an agent (Hollar), and paid out as Kaczmarek indicated to Detective Myers, that the claim had been submitted.
{¶38} While it is unclear whether Kaczmarek vandalized her own apartment, the evidence seems reasonably clear that if she did not do it herself she knew about it. Kaczmarek lied to investigators and to her landlord repeatedly and throughout the investigation. She also purchased the spray paint cans used in the “vandalism” only 82 minutes before she called 9-1-1 to report the vandalism.
{¶39} Therefore, I would find that sufficient evidence was introduced for a jury to conclude that Kaczmarek had submitted a fraudulent claim and was paid out on that claim.
{¶40} Accordingly, I would overrule Kaсzmarek’s assignment of error and proceed to address the remaining assignments of error.
/jlr