Plea of Guilty of Murder for Insurance Cannot Be Withdrawn
Barry Zalma
Nov 9, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gakz_bUr and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gG2NezXG and at https://lnkd.in/g7R_mwrn and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4650 posts.
In State Of Ohio v. Darin Brusiter, No. 112410, 2023-Ohio-3794, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (October 19, 2023) Darin Brusiter (“Brusiter”) appealed for the third time from the trial court’s denial of his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
FACTS
In April 2011, Brusiter was charged with two counts of aggravated murder, with murder-for-hire and firearm specifications, kidnapping, insurance fraud, and tampering with evidence in relation to the killing of Asia Harris (“Harris”). Harris’s husband Samuel Wilson was also charged in the same indictment.
Brusiter filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the police as being in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). On May 2, 2012, the court denied Brusiter’s motion and that same day he pled guilty to one count each of aggravated murder, kidnapping, insurance fraud, and tampering with evidence. The court sentenced Brusiter to an agreed term of “33 years to life” in prison.
Brusiter filed a direct appeal of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and the Court of Appeals earlier affirmed Brusiter’s convictions, finding that he waived his right to appeal pretrial rulings when he pled guilty. In finding that Brusiter waived his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals also concluded that “the record on appeal affirmatively demonstrates that [Brusiter] entered a voluntary, knowing and intelligent guilty plea as required by Crim.R. 11.”
Brusiter filed a second motion to withdraw guilty plea. In this motion, Brusiter argued that there are two, apparently specious, reasons he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court summarily denied both motions to withdraw guilty plea.
ANALYSIS
Appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion.
The presumption of prejudice recognized in precedent applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver. Brusiter’s 2020 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and the improper denial of his motion to suppress, is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Brusiter filed a direct appeal in which he challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals three times affirmed Brusiter’s convictions, finding that he waived his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress by pleading guilty. The Court of Appeals also found that Brusiter’s guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brusiter’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without holding a hearing. The motion was filed almost nine years after he pled guilty to aggravated murder and other offenses associated with the death of Harris.
ZALMA OPINION
Although life insurance fraud by murder is a serious and violent crime Mr. Brusiter decided it was important to plead guilty with a guaranteed sentence of only 33 years rather than a death sentence. Regardless, he abused the kindness of the courts of Ohio by filing multiple motions and appeals to withdraw his plea. Since he’s in jail for at least 20 more years it made no sense to punish him further or seek monetary sanctions he could not pay, but any further appeals or motions should be summarily dismissed without an opinion.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma
. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g; Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
