Opinion ID: 2600749
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prior Insurance Claims

Text: During the hearing on the prosecutor's K.S.A. 60-455 motion, the prosecutor proposed introducing evidence that although the defendant's prior claims were suspicious, the insurers elected not to prosecute defendant for fraudulent claims because it was more cost efficient to pay the claims than to litigate them. The trial judge expressed concern regarding the prejudicial nature of such evidence: I guess my concern is if [the] motive [for] introducing evidence of prior years average receipts from insurance benefits were simply to show Mr. Boorigie's sophistication in understanding how insurance could be available down the road, that's one thing. The prejudicial part of it is that it would give the appearance that all of those prior claims were questionable, and yet there's not going to be any evidence to show that, so it's going to be conjecture, and that would seem to me to be highly prejudicial. The prosecutor then agreed to limit the evidence to testimony that the defendant filed claims annually and was paid on those claims an average of $78,000 a year until 1995, when the insurers discontinued payments. The prosecutor argued that the evidence was relevant to show that the defendant had a financial need and that life insurance proceeds were available; hence, there existed a financial motive for killing Jenell and burning the house. The court agreed to admit the evidence. At trial, the prosecutor introduced evidence that Boorigie had received insurance payments averaging approximately $83,000 a year from the government for the years 1989 to 1995. A compliance investigator for the Department of Agriculture testified on direct examination: Q. Now, if we do a little bit of math here and if we combine the last five years payoff from the State of Kansas and the State of Oklahoma, how much would that represent of an annual payment for Mr. Boorigie, Junior, for those last five years? A. That average payment would be $83,114.00. Q. Now both for Kansas and in Oklahoma the last payment was what year? A. 1995. Q. Okay. And when did you visit  when did you meet Jenell Boorigie, Junior? A. Um, the first time I met Jenell was July 17, 1996. Q. And what was the purpose of that meeting? A. To obtain records we had requested from Mr. Boorigie, um, on production, seed, fertilizer, chemical tickets. There was no objection to the testimony by defendant's counsel. At the close of evidence, the judge instructed the jury: Evidence has been admitted tending to prove that the defendant committed crimes other than the present crimes charged. That evidence may not be considered by you as evidence of a general disposition on the part of defendant to commit crime. It may only be considered by you as follows: 1. Evidence of prior fires may only be considered by you for the purpose of proving defendant's identity, motive, knowledge, intent and plan as to the arson charged in Count 2 or in the Alternative Count 2. 2. Evidence of prior crimes against defendant's ex-wives may only be considered by you for the purpose of proving defendant's intent, identity, plan and absence of mistake or accident as to the charge of murder in Count 1. 3. Evidence of prior insurance claims may only be considered by you for the purpose of proving defendant's motive, intent, plan and identity as to the charge of murder in Count 1 and the charge of arson in Count 2 and the Alternative Count 2. 4. Evidence of correspondence between defendant and Cindy Falke setting forth defendant's attempt to have an unknown person claim responsibility for the death of Betty Jenell Boorigie may only be considered by you for the purpose of proving defendant's identity, motive, knowledge, intent, plan and absence of mistake as to the charge of murder in Count 1; the charge of arson in Count 2 and the Alternative Count 2; and the charges of criminal solicitation in Counts 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Boorigie asserts that the witness testified that he met with the Boorigies for the first time in 1996 to collect supporting documentation about the crops and expenses, and that after that, the defendant received no further payments. The defendant contends that the evidence strongly suggests that there was something improper about the insurance claimsthe inference the trial court specifically sought to avoid by limiting the evidence admitted. When the trial record is read in context, the testimony does not suggest that the insurance claims were suspicious. As presented, the evidence of prior insurance claims tended to prove that the defendant had a financial motive for murder and arson. As such, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the evidence.