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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
