Opinion ID: 4543042
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Case Unravels

Text: On May 14, 2013, just four days after Hinkle’s arrest, an agent working for Palmetto Insurance drafted a letter addressed “[t]o whom it may concern.” Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1318 (capitalization removed). The letter began by verifying that on October 23, 2003, a trailer was stolen from the Carpenter’s Church. But what the letter said next undid Deputy Estep’s case. The letter advised that in 2003 the church had owned two Haulmark trailers, and that Palmetto Insurance had now realized that it had mixed the two VINs in processing the stolen-trailer paperwork. The news was dire—Palmetto Insurance had “mistakenly reported the wrong VIN# as stolen” and would “be processing a correction.” Id. The letter Colorado Springs, 477 F.3d 1212, 1218 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007); United States v. Piggie, 622 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir. 1980). 11 summed up “that the trailer currently in possession of Mr. Laramie Hinkle” in fact “was NOT stolen.” Id. On May 21, 2013, the Carpenter’s Church drafted its own letter addressed “[t]o whom it may concern” “to verify that Vaughn Keown [i]s the rightful owner of the trailer [the trailer in Oklahoma that Deputy Estep had called about].” Appellant’s App. vol. 3 at 708. The church’s letter advised that Vaughn Keown had “purchased the trailer from The Carpenter’s Church in November, 2008.” Id.7 Deputy Estep testified that about “two to three weeks” after Hinkle’s arrest (so sometime between about May 24 to June 1, 2013), a Palmetto Insurance representative called him. Id. at 524. The representative told Deputy Estep that the VIN of the church’s stolen trailer did not match the VIN of the Oklahoma trailer. Deputy Estep testified that he “contacted the D.A.’s office immediately” after hearing about the “grave mistake.” Id. at 522. Prosecutor Webb testified to the contrary, saying that she never received a phone call from Deputy Estep informing her “that the trailer in question was not stolen[.]” Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1150. On May 31, 2013, Palmetto Insurance’s representative faxed to Deputy Estep a 2013 supplemental report generated by the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office 7 We are uncertain of the date that the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office received either letter. We note that both letters have remnants of fax transmissions: both show “No. 5965,” the Palmetto Insurance letter shows “P. 2” and the Carpenter’s Church letter shows “P. 3,” and each shows transmission “May 21, 2013 10:12 AM.” Appellant’s App. vol. 3 at 707–08. On summary-judgment review, and considering the earlier communications between Deputy Estep and the two letter writers, we see a fair inference that the sheriff’s office had both letters on May 21, 2013, and it faxed them elsewhere at 10:12 a.m. 12 concerning the stolen trailer’s VIN. As mentioned, the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office had no VIN listed in its 2003 incident report for the church’s stolen trailer. But in May 2013, after talking with the Palmetto Insurance representative, Deputy Nancy Hunt of the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office “went to the old NCIC files” and “obtain[ed] the vin # that was entered into NCIC” for the stolen trailer. Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 382. As revealed in the supplemental report, Deputy Hunt saw that the VIN number the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office had entered differed from the VIN of the trailer in Oklahoma. Deputy Estep testified that he “believe[d] [he] would have” received the Palmetto Insurance’s representative’s May 31 fax. Appellant’s App. vol. 4 at 813. Nonetheless, Deputy Estep also testified that he could not “really remember receiving this.” Appellant’s App. vol. 3 at 545. Deputy Estep testified that “on his way out” of the Beckham County Sheriff’s Office (he resigned on July 8, 2013), he “explained to Sheriff Jay the situation[,] . . . told him where everything was,” and told him “that there was conclusive evidence” that Hinkle did not steal the trailer. See Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1139–40. Faced with Deputy Estep’s testimony that he had informed Sheriff Jay about Hinkle’s innocence “as he was getting ready to leave the department,” Sheriff Jay testified that he could not “recall [having] any conversation with him.” Appellant’s App. vol. 2 at 240–41. But Sheriff Jay also said that he was “not saying it didn’t happen.” Id. at 240. Furthermore, Sheriff Jay testified that he did not “recall ever seeing” Palmetto Insurance’s letter before being deposed on August 14, 2017. Id. at 237. Similarly, he 13 claimed that he had “never laid eyes” on the Carpenter Church’s letter. Id. at 236–37. And Sheriff Jay said that he did not “recall ever seeing [the fax] before.” Id. at 238. Despite the exculpatory evidence from the church and its insurer, Prosecutor Webb and the district attorney’s office delayed dismissing the case. According to Prosecutor Webb, Sheriff Jay had told her that either the insurance commission or the attorney general’s office was investigating the Palmetto Insurance Agency for fraud. The specifics of any such fraud investigation are unclear. Prosecutor Webb testified that the investigation might have involved the Palmetto Insurance’s representative who had spoken with Deputy Estep: “I kind of think that’s the lady that they were investigating.” Appellant’s App. vol. 5 at 1156. Prosecutor Webb could not remember whether she called “the insurance commission or the attorney general’s office” in South Carolina about the investigation. Id. at 1160–62. But she recalled that a person from one of those offices told her that the investigation had run into “a dead end.” Id. at 1160. Soon after that conversation, the district attorney’s office moved to dismiss the charges against Hinkle. And on September 12, 2013, the state district judge dismissed the case.