Title: Maycock v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

CHRISTINA CAROLE MAYCOCK v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2011 WY 104Case Number: No. S-10-0208Decided: 07/06/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
 

CHRISTINA 
CAROLE MAYCOCK,Appellant (Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee (Plaintiff).

 
 
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County

 
 
 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Kevin 
K. Kessner of Yonkee & Toner LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Justin A. 
Daraie, Assistant Attorney General.  
Argument by Mr. Daraie.

 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant 
Christina Carole Maycock challenges her conviction for obtaining property by 
false pretenses, raising claims of sufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary 
error.  We hold the evidence 
presented at trial is insufficient to sustain Maycock's conviction and 
reverse.

 
 

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Maycock presents 
the following issues:

 
 
I.          
Did the State fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Cemetery 
District had been defrauded of insurance premiums when the unrebutted testimony 
of the District's board members was that the Board was willing to pay the 
insurance premiums for the families of unmarried couples with 
children?

 
 
II.         
Did the trial court violate the best evidence rule when it allowed 
testimony about the contents of an insurance policy without requiring that the 
policy be entered into evidence?

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Maycock began 
working as a part-time employee for the Campbell County Cemetery District 
(District) in 1984.  She became a 
full-time grounds supervisor in the fall of 1985, and, in 1988, she was promoted 
to general cemetery supervisor.  
Maycock held that position until 2008, at which time she retired and was 
elected to the District's Board of Directors (Board).  

 
 
[¶4]      In 1985, the 
Board decided it would finance health insurance coverage for the District's 
full-time employees and their families.  
The Board arranged its first group policy with Time Insurance 
Company.  The Board continued to 
provide such insurance, but switched insurance companies multiple times over the 
ensuing years.  In 1992, the 
District signed on with Employer's Health Insurance Company, which later became 
Humana Insurance Company.  The terms 
of that 1992 policy limited coverage to the District's employees, their spouses, 
and their dependent children.  

 
 
[¶5]      On December 4, 
1992, Maycock enrolled in the District's insurance plan with Employer's 
Health.  On the insurance enrollment 
form, Maycock noted she was married and listed Bill Maycock as her spouse.  As a result, Bill Maycock was added to 
the District's group plan, with the District paying the full cost of his 
insurance coverage.  

 
 
[¶6]      In August 2009, 
more than sixteen years later, the Gillette Police Department received a tip 
that Maycock had misrepresented Bill Maycock to be her spouse on the 1992 
insurance enrollment form.  The 
ensuing investigation confirmed the Maycocks were not husband and wife in 1992, 
at the time Maycock enrolled in the District's group insurance plan.  The Maycocks had previously been 
married, but were divorced in 1971.   
Despite the divorce, the Maycocks and their children continued to live 
together as a family in a home jointly owned by the couple.  They eventually remarried on September 
1, 1999.  

 
 
[¶7]      On September 22, 
2009, the State charged Maycock with one count of obtaining property by false 
pretenses under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2003)1 and § 6-3-410 (LexisNexis 2009),2 alleging that Maycock "on or 
between December 4, 1992 and September 1, 1999, . . . did knowingly obtain 
property from another person by false pretenses with intent to defraud the 
person, with the value of the property being [five hundred] dollars [($500.00)] 
or more, that conduct occurring as part of a common scheme or plan and over the 
course of time[.]"    
After a two-day trial, a jury convicted Maycock on the charged offense on 
May 27, 2010.  The district court 
imposed a suspended prison sentence of two to five years, placed Maycock on five 
years of supervised probation, and ordered her to pay, among other things, 
restitution in the amount of $17,288.00.3  This appeal 
followed.

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶8]      In her first 
issue, Maycock challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting her 
conviction.  Our standard for 
reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is well known, and we need not 
repeat it in detail here.  In short, 
our task in considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim is to determine 
whether the evidence as a whole is adequate to support a reasonable inference of 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when that evidence is viewed in the light most 
favorable to the State.  Trevino v. State, 2006 WY 113, ¶ 9, 142 P.3d 214, 217 (Wyo. 2006); Lopez v. 
State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16, 86 P.3d 851, 857 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
[¶9]      In order to 
convict a defendant of obtaining property by false pretenses under § 6-3-407(a), 
the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable 
doubt:

 
 
(1)       the 
pretenses;

 
 
(2)       their 
falsity;

 
 
(3)       the fact of 
obtaining property[4] 
by reason of the pretenses;

 
 
(4)       the 
knowledge of the accused of their falsity; and

 
 
(5)       the intent 
to defraud.

 
 

Lopez 
v. State, 
788 P.2d 1150, 1152 (Wyo. 1990) (citing Miller v. State, 732 P.2d 1054 (Wyo. 
1987); Driver v. State, 589 P.2d 391 
(Wyo. 1979)).  Indispensible to the 
establishment of this crime is proof that the victim relied on the alleged false 
pretense; that is, proof the alleged false pretense was the controlling factor 
which induced the victim to part with his property.  Miller, 732 P.2d at 1062-63; see also 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 19.7(c) at 
122-23 (2nd ed. 2003).

 
 
[¶10]   In this case, there is no question 
that sufficient proof was adduced at trial to permit a reasonable juror to find 
beyond a reasonable doubt that Maycock acted to deceive by falsely representing 
her marital status on the insurance enrollment form.  The question presented for our 
consideration is whether there is sufficient proof of the same nature of 
reliance by the Board on that misrepresentation.  After careful review of the record, we 
conclude there is not.

 
 
[¶11]   The only evidence adduced at trial 
on this issue came from the testimony of three defense witnesses who were Board 
members during the time period the crime allegedly occurred.  Viewed collectively, their testimony 
shows: (1) the Board intended to finance insurance for the District's employees 
and their families; (2) the Board broadly defined "family" to include anyone 
living in the same household as the employee; (3) the Maycocks' marital status 
was of no consequence to the Board because Bill Maycock fit within the Board's 
broad definition of family for purposes of the District's insurance coverage; 
and (4) the Board would have insured Bill Maycock even if it had known the 
Maycocks were not legally married.5  No witness testified that the Board 
relied on Maycock's misrepresentation or that the Board would not have paid the 
insurance premiums for Bill Maycock but for that misrepresentation.  In sum, there is simply no evidence that 
Maycock's misrepresentation was the determining factor in the Board's decision 
to pay the cost of insuring Bill Maycock.  
Absent proof that Maycock obtained the cost of insurance coverage for 
Bill Maycock by her misrepresentation, her conviction cannot stand and must be 
reversed.  Our determination on this 
issue renders it unnecessary to address Maycock's other claimed 
error.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶12]   We hold there is insufficient 
evidence to sustain Maycock's conviction for the crime of obtaining property by 
false pretenses.  The matter is 
remanded to the district court with directions that the judgment and sentence be 
vacated and that the amended information be dismissed with prejudice.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1At the time of the offense, § 6-3-407(a)(i) provided in relevant 
part:

 
 
(a)        A 
person who knowingly obtains property from another person by false pretenses 
with intent to defraud the person is guilty of:

(i)         
A felony .  .  . if the value of the property is five 
hundred dollars ($500.00) or more[.]

 
 
The statute was amended in 2004 to increase the felony level amount to 
$1,000.00.  2004 Wyo. Sess. Laws. 
Ch. 126, § 1.

 
 

2§ 6-3-410 provides:

 
 
The amount of property involved in violations of W.S. 6-3-402 through 
6-3-404 and 6-3-406 through 6-3-408 committed pursuant to a common scheme or the 
same transaction, whether the property is taken from the same person or 
different persons, may be aggregated in determining the value of the 
property.

 
 

3This is the amount of the insurance premiums paid by the Board on behalf 
of Bill Maycock during the time period at issue.  

 
 

4Property is defined as "anything of value whether tangible or intangible, 
real or personal, public or private."  
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-104(a)(viii) (LexisNexis 
2009).

 
 

5It is apparent from the testimony that these former Board members were 
not aware of the coverage limitations under the Humana policy.  Because there is no evidence to the 
contrary, we must assume the other Board members shared the same 
misunderstanding.