Opinion ID: 788161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 8 Henningsen appeals the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, contending that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. On appeal, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask whether any rational jury could have found Henningsen guilty of mail fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Morris, 80 F.3d 1151, 1160 (7th Cir.1996). 9 The mail fraud statute prohibits devising a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, and executing that scheme by use of the mails. 18 U.S.C. § 1341. A conviction must satisfy three elements: (1) the defendant's participation in a scheme to defraud; (2) the defendant's intent to defraud; and (3) the defendant's use of the mails in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. United States v. Hickok, 77 F.3d 992, 1002-03 (7th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the evidence must establish that the false representations were material. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). A false statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed. United States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 508 (7th Cir.2002). Henningsen challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to the first two elements of the statute. We take each in turn.
10 Henningsen contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove his participation in a scheme to defraud because his representations to contributors were not false. Specifically, Henningsen claims that all he promised donors was that he would run for re-election. Henningsen concludes that since he made good on this promise, no false representations were made, without which there can be no scheme to defraud. 11 This Circuit has found that a scheme to defraud exists when the conduct at issue has demonstrated a departure from fundamental honesty, moral uprightness and candid dealings in the general life of the community. United States v. Hammen, 977 F.2d 379, 383 (7th Cir.1992). The conduct must have also been material, in that it must have had a natural tendency to influence . . . the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed. Fernandez, 282 F.3d at 508. 12 We believe that the jury's finding of a scheme to defraud was rational and supported by the evidence. There was ample evidence that Henningsen represented one thing to donors, but did another. The government showed that Henningsen solicited donations using pre-printed campaign envelopes. Language on the envelopes included a pitch to support Henningsen's re-election bid and a blank for the amount contributed. The government presented evidence that Henningsen diverted $31,395 in campaign donations for private use through various methods, including writing checks to cash from the campaign account, taking back cash upon deposit of donations, and writing checks to pay for personal expenses. In addition, the evidence indicated that Henningsen failed to fully disclose campaign revenue and expenditures in campaign finance reports mandated by the State of Wisconsin. A rational jury could have easily determined on these facts that Henningsen's solicitation of campaign funds for private use was dishonest, and that it influenced donors' decisions to contribute. 13 Henningsen also makes a second argument: Since he had not met all of the donors who contributed to his campaign, he could not have made false representations to each of them. Here, however, Henningsen misunderstands the law. The crime of mail fraud does not include an element requiring a contemplated harm to a specific, identifiable victim. Fernandez, 282 F.3d at 506-07. Therefore, it makes no difference that Henningsen may not have solicited each donor individually. Each person who gave to Henningsen's re-election campaign and whose money was diverted for non-campaign expenses was a victim of his false representations.
14 Henningsen also argues that a rational jury could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with the specific intent of defrauding donors. While Henningsen admits to having diverted campaign funds for personal use, he claims that he was only compensating himself for prior loans that he had made to his campaign. Henningsen testified that he had loaned his campaign as much as $71,000.00 since 1983. Consequently, Henningsen argues, he could not steal that which he was entitled to recoup. 15 The jury, having heard Henningsen's testimony at trial, rejected this explanation. Such is its right; the jury is entitled to assess the credibility of Henningsen's testimony and to draw inferences from the rest of the evidence to conclude that Henningsen intended to defraud contributors. Hickok, 77 F.3d at 1003. Again, we believe that the jury's determination was supported by the evidence and was not irrational. 16 The government presented abundant evidence that Henningsen concealed his personal use of campaign funds. First, the government showed that Henningsen failed to disclose expenses, the result being that the account balances he reported to the public were wildly inaccurate. For example, Henningsen reported that as of December 31, 2000, he had a campaign account balance of $7,813.20, when in fact the actual balance was $652.21. At the end of June 2001, Henningsen reported a campaign account balance of $13,125.77, when the actual balance was $1,177.94. And at the end of June 2002, Henningsen reported a campaign account balance of $23,218.20, when the actual balance was $112.37. The government also demonstrated that Henningsen failed to document donations. For example, Henningsen did not disclose that he received 24 campaign checks totaling $6,901 between July and December 2001, while during that same period he wrote over 20 checks to cash, drawing over $4,700 from the campaign account. Additionally, the government established that Henningsen made false notations on the memo lines of campaign checks to cash, indicating names of persons who were to receive this cash. None received any of this money. 17 The government also demonstrated that Henningsen failed to document most of his personal loans to the campaign. By contrast, Henningsen carefully documented loans from others, including loans as minor as a $2.44 copying charge. Finally, the government presented evidence demonstrating Henningsen's need for money, which included debts to the IRS totaling over $20,000, credit card debt, and his daughter's college expenses. 18 This court has found that to act with intent to defraud means to act willfully and with specific intent to deceive or cheat, usually for the purpose of getting financial gain for one's self or causing financial loss to another. United States v. Moede, 48 F.3d 238, 241 (7th Cir.1995). Proof of intent to defraud is often proven through circumstantial evidence or by inferences drawn from the scheme itself. Id. The evidence at trial was certainly adequate to permit the jury to find an intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt.