Murder for Insurance Proceeds Results in Life in Prison
It Is Not Nice to Break Your Wife's Neck to Collect her Life Insurance So You Get Life In Prison
Post 5067
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gm2t_AX4 and at https://lnkd.in/grPYwukK, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Insurance fraudster and murder Kenneth Russell Moyer appealed the trial court's denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Moyer took issue with the jury's conclusion he was a beneficiary on his wife's insurance policy, his counsel's failure to properly litigate this issue at his first trial and argued his appellate counsel's conclusion he is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
In The People v. Kenneth Russell Moyer, C100909, California Court of Appeals, Third District, El Dorado (April 23, 2025) the Court of Appeals kept the killer in jail.
BACKGROUND
The information charged Moyer with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, insurance fraud and attempted escape while felony charges are pending. The information further alleged the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain.
The facts of the underlying the offense are set forth in the appellate opinion from Moyer's prior appeal. (People v. Moyer (Aug. 30, 1996, C019477) [nonpub. opn.] (Moyer).)
Succinctly stated, in this case, a wealthy widow marries an unfaithful man who takes financial advantage of her, leading to her murder.
Shortly after the start of their marriage, Moyer shared his plans with Ross, a former employee who was in prison. The two discussed whether Ross would kill the victim for Moyer when he was released from prison in 1992 by breaking her neck. The plan failed when Ross was denied release.
In September 1992, Moyer and the victim each took out $180,000 life insurance policies. Each policy required a physical examination. Moyer was the beneficiary of the victim's policy. The victim completed her physical examination, and her life insurance policy became effective. That evening a passing motorist reported seeing a car plunge down an embankment. The motorist found the victim dead in the driver's seat, covered in dried blood. Mitch McLees was semiconscious in the passenger seat but suddenly became alert when paramedics attempted to intubate him. He had no internal injuries and only a small cut.
A pathologist determined that the victim did not die in the car accident but rather died from a broken neck.
McLees testified that he was working in the couple's garage the night of the murder. When Moyer called out to him, he came into the house and found Moyer standing over the victim's body. Moyer told McLees that he had already killed the victim and instructed him to drive somewhere and stage an accident. When McLees refused, Moyer threatened to tell the police that McLees had killed the victim and also threatened his family and fiancée.
After the murder, Moyer hired workers to scrape grout from the tiles in his home's entryway, explaining that he had spilled cherry cough syrup on them. However, when investigators analyzed the grout, they found the victim's blood.
THE TRIAL
McLees was convicted of first degree murder of the victim for financial gain and insurance fraud. The jury convicted Moyer of murder, conspiracy to commit murder and insurance fraud. The jury also found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain.
The trial court sentenced Moyer to life without the possibility of parole for the murder, 25 years to life for the conspiracy, and three years in state prison for the attempted escape.
Moyer moved for resentencing and the trial court denied the petition, finding the record of conviction ... was found by the jury to have acted with the intent to kill; therefore, as to both counts, the Petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law and the Court does not find a prima facie showing has been made."
DISCUSSION
Senate Bill No. 1437 added what is now section 1172.6, which allows those convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to seek relief.
As to Moyer's murder conviction, the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of murder: that a human being was killed, the killing was unlawful, and the killing was done with malice aforethought. More importantly, the trial court instructed the jury on the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed for financial gain. The jury found Moyer guilty of first degree murder and found this special circumstance allegation the murder was committed for financial gain true.
As to the factual finding Moyer had the requisite intent to kill. Here the trial court did not err in denying Moyer's petition because he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law based on the jury's special circumstance finding he was the actual killer or he was a direct aider and abettor who had the intent to kill the victim.
ZALMA OPINION
Many in the police, judiciary, and prosecutors believe that insurance fraud is not a violent crime. When a man breaks his wife's neck so he can collect the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the act is as violent a crime as can be conceived. The unmitigated gall of the murderer to first unsuccessfully appeal his conviction and then move to reduce his sentence failed because the evidence was overwhelming and the California Court of Appeal recognized that murder for profit is a serious crime keeping Moyer in Prison for the rest of his life.
(c) 2025 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/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
