Different Crimes, Different Victims, Different Witness, No Double Jeopardy
(c) Barry Zalma
Mar 12, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/giku3nfW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gMJg2RZA and at https://lnkd.in/gzYdPrz7 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4753
Gregory Sewell appealed the order that denied his motion to dismiss based upon double jeopardy. In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Gregory Sewell, No. 1497 MDA 2022, No. J-S27016-23, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (February 27, 2024) the Pennsylvania court resolved the dispute.
FACTS
On April 2, 2021, a vehicle operated by Sandra Ramirez was struck by a driver who left the scene without exchanging information or rendering aid. In investigating Ms. Ramirez’s emergency call, Hanover Police Officer Zachariah Lloyd identified Sewell, who had a suspended license, as the driver of the other vehicle and obtained his insurance policy information. Officer Lloyd discovered that on June 15, 2021, Sewell informed his insurance adjuster in a recorded call that Sewell had been the victim of the hit-and-run by a speeding police vehicle and that he had waited at the scene for more than half an hour after calling the police, who never arrived.
The Commonwealth charged Sewell with insurance fraud and with accidents involving death or personal injury, duty to give information and render aid, duties at stop sign, drivers required to be licensed, and unlawful activities. The latter case terminated when Sewell pled guilty on August 25, 2022, to driving while his operating privilege was suspended.
Sewell thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the current case on double jeopardy grounds, asserting that the insurance fraud prosecution arose from the same criminal episode as the one that culminated in his guilty plea such that it was subject to the compulsory joinder statute.
ANALYSIS
Sewell’s counsel filed a petition to withdraw. The court denied counsel’s petition and ordered the parties to file new briefs since there was a possibility that the double jeopardy argument might be successful.
The question of whether a defendant’s constitutional right against double jeopardy would be infringed by a successive prosecution is a question of law.
A criminal episode is an occurrence or connected series of occurrences and developments which may be viewed as distinctive and apart although part of a larger or more comprehensive series.
A mere de minimis duplication of factual and legal issues is insufficient to establish a logical relationship between offenses. Rather what is required is a substantial duplication of issues of law and fact. Two separate offenses may constitute the same criminal episode if one offense is a necessary step toward the accomplishment of a given criminal objective or if additional offenses occur because of an attempt to secure the benefit of a previous offense or conceal its commission.
As the District Attorney’s Office was investigating the first case, that investigation led to the charges in the second case. The District Attorney’s Office investigated the accident further and discovered that Sewell allegedly lied on a recorded phone call to his insurance adjuster. Although the second event of the alleged fraud stems from the initial hit-and-run incident, the court concluded that it simply creates a “de minimis” connection.
Sewell pled guilty to a summary charge of driving while operating privilege is suspended while the current case is graded as a felony to prove its case for false/fraudulent insurance claim. To prove insurance fraud the Commonwealth needs to show that Sewell knowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer filed a claim that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim. There is no overlap in the elements of the law because the first case Sewell pled guilty to driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended, revoked, or cancelled and before those driving rights were restored.
Analyzing the totality of the circumstances in this case, this court found that there were two separate criminal episodes. The crimes themselves, namely driving under suspension and insurance fraud, have no common elements or logical connection.
The cases have different victims, different affiants, and occurred in different places on different days. The trial court properly held that the relationship between Sewell’s hitting another vehicle and driving away while his driver’s license was suspended on the one hand, and his decision to call his insurance company months later and claim that someone else damaged his vehicle on the other, was not so substantial that they amounted to a single criminal episode. The order was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
There is little similarity between a hit-and-run accident and a false insurance claim months later for the damage caused by the hit-and-run. Driving without a license is a crime in Pennsylvania, especially when causing damage and injury to others. Insurance fraud is a lie told to an insurance company with the intent of causing the insurer to pay a claim it does not owe. They are separate crimes with separate evidence. The fact that the damage for Sewell’s false insurance claim came from the hit and run does not change the fact of a different crime.
(c) 2024 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 my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at; 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 – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH..
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
