After Danielle A. Beckwith was convicted, after a bench trial, of “attempted theft by deception, 17–A Maine Revised Statutes §§152(1)(D), 354(1)(B)(4) and two counts of tampering with public records
or information, 17–A Maine Revised Statutes § 456(1)(A)”, she appealed. State v.
Beckwith, 2015 WL 3561465 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2015). The court
began its opinion by explaining how the convictions arose:
From 1990 to 1995 and again from 2005
until her termination in 2012, Beckwith worked for the Maine Judicial Branch
Office of Transcript Production (Office), which coordinates the production of
transcripts of court proceedings. In 2007, Beckwith became the Office's
supervisor, which, among other things, made her responsible for approving refunds
for overpayment for transcripts. She held that position at the time of the
incident giving rise to this case.
When the Office receives a transcript
order, a staff member estimates the cost of the transcript, which must be paid
in full before the work begins. This information is entered in a database, an
index, and a logbook. The estimated cost for the transcript is rounded up so
that the deposit usually exceeds the actual cost. As a result of this practice,
the requesting party is typically entitled to a refund after the transcript is
completed. When the transcript has been produced and the actual cost has been
determined, the Office's supervisor completes and signs a form authorizing the
refund and submits it to the Judicial Department's Revenue Manager for approval.
As long as the form is signed by a
supervisor, the Revenue Manager approves the refund. The Office of the State
Controller issues the refund check and mails it to the Office of Transcript
Production, which then mails it to the party who is due the refund. The
information documenting the order, including the case name, the docket number,
the case type, the reason for the order, the contact information for the
ordering party, as well as the payment and refund information, is entered in
the database form.
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The court then explained that on October 17, 2012,
a Production Associate in the Office
opened the daily mail and found a transcript refund check for $2,750, payable
to Alex Winchester, which is the name of Beckwith's daughter, who was then
seventeen years old and with whom Beckwith held a joint checking account.
Beckwith had prepared and submitted the refund request to the Revenue Manager,
who approved it on October 12, resulting in the issuance of the refund check.
When the Production Associate came across the refund check in the mail,
Beckwith was out of the office, and the Production Associate placed the check
on Beckwith's desk.
Later that day, the Production
Associate searched the Office's database and did not find a transcript order
from anyone named Winchester. The next day, October 18, 2012, however, the
Production Associate searched the database again and found an entry for an
order placed by an `Alec Winchester’ for an original transcript in the case
of Laux v. Harrington. Although the order form in the database
indicated that Winchester was notified of the deposit amount on September 23,
2012, the form itself was not created until October 17, 2012. Further, the
records that the Production Associate saw on October 18 showed that the order
was cancelled on the same day the deposit was paid, which was a highly unusual
circumstance. That day, the Production Associate also noticed that Beckwith's
computer monitor displayed one window containing the Winchester database entry
and another window containing Google search results for `Alec Winchester.’
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
And, finally, the
Production Associate then conducted a
search of the Laux v. Harrington case and found that in 2011,
an original transcript had been ordered; a deposit of $3,900 had been paid; the
original transcript had been prepared at a cost of $3,279; a refund of $621 had
been issued; and a copy of the transcript had been requested and provided at a
cost of $546.50. Because the Laux ttranscript had
been produced in 2011 and the length and cost of the transcript were known,
someone ordering a copy of the transcript in 2012 would be billed the exact
cost of the copy rather than an estimated amount, eliminating the prospect of a
refund. Also, the form used when a copy of a transcript is ordered is different
from the form used when an original transcript is ordered. The Winchester order
was documented on a form used for original orders rather than duplicate orders.
The Revenue Manager and the Production
Associate were unable to locate a record of a deposit by a `Winchester’ or a
deposit in the amount of $2,750, and neither could find any other documentation
or records to support the refund request. After this information was provided
to Judicial Department supervisors, Beckwith was promptly terminated from
employment.
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The court then reiterated that Beckwith was charged with
attempted theft by deception and two
counts of tampering with public records or information. . . . The records
underlying the two record tampering charges consist of the form on the
electronic database in which Beckwith entered false information documenting the
purported Winchester order and the refund request form Beckwith submitted to
the Revenue Manager. The case proceeded to a bench trial in June 2014.
At the close of the State's evidence
and again at the close of all evidence, Beckwith unsuccessfully moved for
judgment of acquittal. The court found Beckwith guilty of all counts and,
following a sentencing hearing in July 2014, imposed concurrent sixty-day jail
sentences. Beckwith appeals.
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The Supreme Judicial Court began its analysis of her
arguments on appeal by explaining that Beckwith claimed the evidence was
insufficient to support the
convictions. `When a defendant in a criminal case challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the finding of guilt, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State to determine whether the fact-finder could
rationally find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.’ State
v. Woodard, 2013 ME 36, ¶ 19, 68 A.3d 1250 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
2013). . . .
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The court analyzed Beckwith’s argument as it applied to each
charge, “separately”. State v. Beckwith,
supra. It began with the attempted theft by
deception count, noting that
Beckwith was charged with the Class D
offense of attempted theft by deception. A person commits the crime of theft by
deception when she `obtains or exercises control over property of another as a
result of deception ... with [the] intent to deprive the other person of the
property.’ 17–A Maine Revised Statutes § 354(1)(A), (B)(4) (2014). A person is
guilty of criminal attempt if,
`acting with the kind of culpability
required for the commission of the crime, and with the intent to complete the
commission of the crime, the person engages in conduct that in fact constitutes
a substantial step toward its commission.... A substantial step is any conduct
that goes beyond mere preparation and is strongly corroborative of the firmness
of the actor's intent to complete the commission of the crime.’
17–A Maine Revised Statutes §
152(1).
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The Supreme Judicial Court then found that the
evidence supported the court's finding
that Beckwith was guilty of attempted theft by deception. The record demonstrated
that Beckwith requested a transcript refund check for $2,750 made out to her
daughter even though the Office did not owe Beckwith's daughter any money, no
one in that time frame had paid a $2,750 deposit for a transcript, and no one
with the daughter's name had ordered a transcript.
Further, because the transcript at
issue had already been produced several years earlier, the cost of a copy would
have been $546.50, and a party requesting a copy would have been required to
pay that fixed amount. On the day the refund check arrived at the Office, the
database records did not include an entry for the transcript order.
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The court then noted that,
[h]owever, the following day -- the
same day the Production Associate saw that Beckwith had conducted a Google
search for `Alec Winchester’ -- the database records included an entry, which
the court could have found to be backdated, for a transcript ordered by a
person with that name and then cancelled on the same day the deposit was
purportedly received. The court was therefore entitled to find that Beckwith
created a fictitious transaction in order to steal money.
The court was also entitled to conclude
that Beckwith was guilty of criminal attempt under Maine Revised Statutes
§152(1)(D), because although she received the check, the information provided
by the Production Associate to others within the Judicial Department triggered
an investigation that led to Beckwith's termination from employment before she
negotiated the check.
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The Supreme Judicial Court then took up Beckwith’s
conviction for “two counts of tampering with public records.” State
v. Beckwith, supra. As the court
explained, a
person commits this crime when she `[k]nowingly
makes a false entry in, or false alteration of any record, document or thing
belonging to, or received or kept by the government.’ 17–A Maine Revised
Statutes § 456(1)(A). The evidence was sufficient to prove that Beckwith made
entries in two governmental records or documents, namely, the database entries
indicating the transcript order and the refund request, knowing that the
entries were false, in an effort to obtain $2,750 from the State in the guise
of a refund. Beckwith's conduct falls within the plain language of section
456(1)(A).
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The Supreme Judicial Court then explained that
[t]his conclusion calls for us to
reconsider a portion of our holding in State v. Spaulding, 1998
ME 29, 707 A.2d 378 (Maine Supreme Judicial Court 1998). There, Spaulding
submitted an application with the Maine Department of Human Resources to be
listed as a Certified Nursing Assistant. . . . On the application,
she falsely represented that she had never been convicted of a crime. .
. .
As a result, Spaulding was charged with
and convicted of tampering with public records pursuant to 17–A Maine
Revised Statutees § 456(1)(A). State v.
Spaulding, supra. We reversed,
holding in part that because the crime is labeled `tampering,’ it applies only
to `the alteration or change of an existing document.’ . . . Because Spaulding
made a false entry when she created the document and `did not alter or change
information on a document,’ . . we held that she could not be found guilty of
tampering with public records.’ . . .
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
But the court then went on to point out that,
the dissent in Spaulding pointed out, this
holding did not fully recognize the plain and unambiguous language
in section 456(1)(A) that criminalizes making `a false entry’ in a
governmental record or document, as well as falsely altering those
materials. . . . Here, the
evidence demonstrated that Beckwith knowingly made false entries in State
transcript records even though she did not alter or change the contents of
existing records.
Despite our holding in Spaulding, Beckwith's
proven conduct falls squarely within the definition of the crime of tampering
with public records as established by the Legislature, and the court was
entitled to find her guilty of both counts of that crime. Consistent with the
plain language of section 456(1)(A), see State v. Jones, 2012
ME 88, ¶ 6, 46 A.3d 1125 (Maine Supreme Judicial Court 2012), we therefore
overrule that aspect of the holding in Spaulding and now hold
that section 456(1)(A) reaches the knowing entry of false information
in a governmental record or document. . . .
State v. Beckwith,
supra.
The Supreme Judicial Court therefore affirmed Beckwith’s
convictions. State v. Beckwith, supra.
You can, if you are interested, read more about the facts in
the case and see a photo of Beckwith in the news stories you can find here and
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment