Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-0947 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve MELANIE S. CROWL OTN: F042328-6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM CHARGE: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT INSURANCE FRAUD IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Oler, J., January 9, 1998. In this criminal case in which Defendant was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, she has appealed to the Superior Court from the judgment of sentence.~ The basis for the appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.2 This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant and her husband, David Wayne Crowl, were charged with a number of offenses arising out of an incident in which Mr. Crowl staged a fall on ice to collect insurance. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, insurance fraud and attempt to commit theft by deception; her husband was charged with conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, solicitation to commit insurance fraud, insurance fraud and attempt to commit theft by deception. ~ Defendant received a sentence of 23 months probation. Order of Court, October 21, 1997. 2 Defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM A joint trial3 was held on September 24-26, 1997. At the trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of five witnesses and introduced 21 exhibits. Defendant presented the testimony of two witnesses and introduced one exhibit. The co-defendant joined in presenting one of Defendant's witnesses. On behalf of the Commonwealth, Anna Johnstonbaugh testified that she and the Crowls were next-door neighbors in an apartment complex on March 28, 1996.4 She stated that between 8:30 and 11:30 that evening, she and the Crowls were playing cards in her apartment, when her son returned from bicycling and remarked upon the slippery condition of the sidewalks due to ice.s Mr. Crowl, according to Ms. Johnstonbaugh, noted that he and Defendant were behind in their bills,6 and observed that he could get money from an insurance company to pay the bills by pretending to slip when he left her apartment.7 Ms. Johnstonbaugh testified that both she and Defendant asked Defendant's husband if he intended to do that, and he eventually responded that he did.8 3 separate informations for purposes of trial). Trial N.T. 16, 18 (hereinafter N.T. 5 N.T. 18-19. N.T. 19. See Pa. R. Crim. P. 1127 (joinder of defendants charged in Id. 2 N.T. 19-20, 37-38. __). NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM In Defendant's presence, Mr. Crowl said that he would give Ms. Johnstonbaugh $500 to $1,000 if she supported the fabrication, Ms. Johnstonbaugh stated.9 Defendant, according to Ms. Johnstonbaugh, said that she (Defendant) would call the paramedics.~° Ms. Johnstonbaugh testified that Defendant left for the Crowls' apartment around 11:30, and that Mr. Crowl proceeded after her.~ Prior to reaching his apartment door, Mr. Crowl lay down on the sidewalk and pretended to have fallen, she stated.~2 Ms. Johnstonbaugh testified that she came out of her apartment and walked over to Mr. Crowl and that Defendant yelled to them that the ambulance was on its way.~3 Defendant brought a blanket out for herhusband, and Ms. Johnstonbaugh gave him a cigarette, she said.TM Several days later, according to Ms. Johnstonbaugh, Mr. Crowl telephoned her and asked that she write a letter to his attorney indicating that he had slipped on ice.~s 9 N.T. 22, 49. ~0 N.T. 20. ~ N.T. 22, 26. ~2 N.T. 22-23. ~3 Id. ~4 N.T. 23. ~s N.T. 23-24. 3 NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM Ms. Johnstonbaugh testified that she temporized about writing the letter,~6 had a falling out with Mr. Crowl about two months later,~7 and reported the fraud to police and the apartment manager.~8 She eventually spoke to a representative of the apartment's liability insurance carrier and a special agent with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office about it, she said.~9 On cross-examination, Ms. Johnstonbaugh conceded that she had not specifically told either the carrier's representative or the special agent about Defendant's statement that she would call for the ambulance.2° She denied having ever been romantically involved with Defendant's husband.2~ Ms. Johnstonbaugh's 15-year-old son, Shawn Yearick, corroborated his mother's account of his introduction of the subject of icy sidewalks, Mr. Crowl's response in the form of a scheme to stage an accident to collect insurance, Defendant's inquiry as to whether he was actually going to do it, Mr. Crowl's affirmative reply, and Mr. Crowl's pretense of a fall.~ Other ~6 N.T. 25. ~7 N.T. 42. ~8 N.T. 32, 41, 45-46, 50. ~9 N.T. 4, 49-51. 20 N.T. 50-51. ~ N.T. 45. 22 N.T. 51-63. NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM Commonwealth witnesses testified variously as to the Crowls' status as tenants at the apartment complexTM and their financial difficulties,24 Mr. Crowl's retention of an attorney and presentation of a claim for damages upon the complex for submission to its insurer,2s the forwarding of the claim by way of the complex's insurance agent to its liability insurance carrier,26 and the carrier's eventual denial of the claim27 and referral of the matter to Pennsylvania's Attorney General.28 Defendant and the co-defendant presented the testimony of Veronica Alterio, a former supervisor of Ms. Johnstonbaugh at a Uni-Mart, who stated that Ms. Johnstonbaugh had a bad reputation for truth and veracity.29 Defendant also testified on her own behalf.3° In her testimony, Defendant basically conceded the discussion on the evening in question concerning a pretended fall by Mr. 23 N.T. 67-69. 24 N.T. 69-76. 2s N.T. 77. 26 N.T. 94, 102. ~7 N.T. 105. 28 N.T. 106. 29 N.T. 116-22. 30 N.T. 124-42. 5 NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM Crowl.3~ She admitted that she had asked him if he intended to do it, and that he had responded affirmatively.32 Defendant denied that she had participated in formulating the plan,33 but conceded that she and her husband were behind in their rent,TM and that "the plan was made.''3s Her part of the plan, she testified, was to call 911.36 On the subject of the plan, she engaged in this exchange on cross-examination conducted by the co- defendant: Q Would you say that a plan was made or there was mention of somebody that could slip and fall in reference to - A Pretty much a plan was made because [Ms. Johnstonbaugh] had what she was supposed to do. I had what I was supposed to do. [Mr. Crowl] had what [he was] supposed to do.37 Defendant admitted that she had called for the police and an ambulance after the incident,38 reported that her husband had N.T. 131, 136. N.T. 137. Id. N.T. 135. N.T. 137. N.T. 141. 139-40. N.T. 133, 137-38. "I did not make the plan," she added. NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM fallen,39 and did not say that the accident had been staged.4° She conceded that she might have later picked him up at the hospital.4~ Defendant testified that she was afraid of her husband.~2 She stated that she had tried to talk him out of the scheme at one point when Ms. Johnstonbaugh left the room,~3 and that after the incident she had tried to convince him not to pursue a claim.~ Defendant. testified that she had called 911 because she became apprehensive that her husband had actually fallen and hurt himself when she saw him on the ground.45 She said that in her mind she honestly felt that he was injured.46 Defendant's husband did not testify at the trial.~7 The Commonwealth did not present any rebuttal testimony.~8 42 case. 43 44 45 46 47 48 ~9 N.T. 133. 40 N.T. 138. ~ N.T. 133. N.T. 134. A charge on duress was not requested in this N.T. 131. N.T. 139. N.T. 137-38, 140. N.T. 140. N.T. 143-44. N.T. 144. NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM The jury returned a verdict of guilty of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud against Defendant, and not guilty of insurance fraud and theft by deception. It returned a verdict of guilty of all charges - conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, solicitation to commit insurance fraud, insurance fraud and attempt to commit theft by deception - against her husband. DISCUSSION "[T]he test of sufficiency of the evidence is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the [offense] charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Jackson, 506 Pa. 469, 472-73, 485 A.2d 1102, 1103 (1984) (citations omitted). "[A] determination [as to the credibility of witnesses] is within the sole province of the trier of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence." Id. at 475, 485 A.2d at 1105. With respect to conspiracy, the offense is defined as follows: A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (1) agrees ~with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in 8 NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.49 "No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired."s° Renunciation is a defense to a charge of conspiracy,s~ Mere presence at the scene of, or knowledge of, a conspiracy will not constitute the offense of conspiracy. See Commonwealth v. Henderson, 249 Pa. Super. 472, 378 A.2d 393 (1977). On the other hand, a conspiracy may be either "tacit or express,"s2 and "an agreement can be inferred from a variety of circumstances including, but not limited to, the relation between the parties, knowledge of and participation in the crime, and the circumstances 49 Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §903(a). Id. 18 Pa. C.S. ~903(e). s~ "It is a defense that the actor, after conspiring to commit a crime, thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal intent." Id., 18 Pa. C.S. ~903(f) (emphasis added). In this case, Defendant did not herself do anything to thwart the success of the conspiracy. s2 Commonwealth v. Lore, 338 Pa. Super. 42, 62, 487 A.2d 841, 852 (1984). NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM and conduct of the parties surrounding the criminal episode. These factors may coalesce to establish a conspiratorial agreement beyond a reasonable doubt where one factor alone might fail."53 Insurance fraud is defined, in one form, as follows: A person commits an offense if the person... [k]nowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer or self-insured, presents or causes to be presented to any insurer or self-insured any statement forming a part of, or in support of, a claim that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim.54 In the present case, the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, supported factual conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt that on March 28, 1996, Defendant arrived at a common understanding, tacit or explicit, with one or more others, including her husband, whereby her husband would engage in the crime of insurance fraud by means of a staged accident and she would aid him in doing so by calling for rescue personnel, and that overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were committed by both Defendant and her husband, in the form of her husband's pretended fall, Defendant's call to 911, and her husband's submission of a ~ Commonwealth v. French, 396 Pa. Super. 436, 441, 578 A.2d 1292, 1294 (1990). ~4 Act of February 7, 1990, P.L. 11, ~2, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. ~4117(a)(2) (1997 SuPp.). 10 NO. 97-0947 CRIMINAL TERM claim for damages, inter alia. The jury was not required to believe Defendant's testimony that she was not a party to the plan, or that she summoned assistance because she felt her husband had actually suffered an injury in a fall. For these reasons, it is believed that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict against Defendant of guilty of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, and that the judgment of sentence was properly imposed. Mark Bellavia, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Attorney for the Commonwealth Ellen K. Barry, Esq. First Assistant Public Defender Attorney for the Defendant 11