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
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
