Opinion ID: 882856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: isufficiency of the evidence

Text: Sharon was convicted of conspiracy to commit felony theft by obtaining unauthorized control of State Fund monies through deception. Sharon contends that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction because the State Fund authorized or consented to her actions by entering into a Full and Final Compromise Settlement of her workers' compensation claim. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The only issue raised by Sharon regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is whether or not she obtained the workers' compensation benefits by deception. Section 45-2-211, MCA, states that the consent of the victim to conduct charged to constitute an offense or to the result thereof is a defense. Sharon would use this statute as a complete defense, and thus a bar to this conviction. We note that consent is ineffective if it is induced by deception. Deception, as defined at § 45-2-101(17), MCA, means knowingly to: (a) create or confirm in another an impression which is false and which the offender does not believe to be true; (b) fail to correct a false impression which the offender previously has created or confirmed; . . . There are a number of instances in this case where Sharon deceived the State Fund. For example, Sharon deceived the State Fund into issuing workers' compensation insurance on the West Parrot Creek Properties, when the same was not a legitimate, ongoing enterprise. She indicated that Robert Young and she both earned $400 per week, when she knew the same to be untrue. Sharon created or confirmed in the State Fund the impression that she had been injured while in the course and scope of her legitimate employment with the West Parrot Creek Properties. After the State Fund accepted liability for Sharon's purported injury, Sharon failed to correct the false impression that she created regarding her injury, the nature of her business, and the earnings of that business. There is no question that the State Fund's consent to liability in this case was induced through Sharon's deception. The State Fund did not know Sharon's claim for benefits was fraudulent at the time it entered into the settlement agreement. Had the State Fund received accurate information from Sharon, they would not have extended over $135,000 in benefits to her. The State Fund did not consent to Sharon's actions in this case. Sharon claims that the State Fund could have ascertained the fraudulent nature of her claim if it had exercised due diligence. In essence, Sharon would have the State Fund conduct a merits evaluation of each and every claim filed with the State Fund before accepting liability and beginning benefits payments. We refuse to impose this burden on the State Fund. The State Fund should be able to rely on the truthfulness, completeness, and accuracy of the representations made by the claimant and employer. Willem Visser, a claims manager for the State Fund, estimated that the State Fund has approximately 20,000 claims per year. To force the State Fund to thoroughly investigate each claim on its merits before providing benefits would cause undue hardship on an already-burdened system. In addition, such a requirement would hurt claimants, in that it would unreasonably delay benefits payments and settlement of legitimate claims. We hold that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction in this case.