Opinion ID: 898140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: [¶ 9] When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court draws all inferences in favor of the verdict. E.g., State v. Lusby, 1998 ND 19, ¶ 5, 574 N.W.2d 805. `This [C]ourt will reverse a criminal conviction only if, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable evidentiary inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' Id. (quoting State v. Olson, 552 N.W.2d 362, 364 (N.D.1996)). [¶ 10] Andrea Barendt was charged with Misapplication of Entrusted Property under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-07; the charge contains seven elements. State v. Jelliff, 251 N.W.2d 1, 3, 7 (N.D.1977) (citing N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-07 and providing this charge requires the State to prove (1) the disposal, use, or transfer; (2) of any interest in property; (3) which has been entrusted to defendant; (4) as a fiduciary; (5) in a manner he knows is not authorized; (6) and that he knows to involve a risk of loss or detriment to; (7) the owner of the property). Andrea Barendt challenges the sufficiency of evidence with regard to two of the elements. She contends there was insufficient evidence to prove she had knowledge her purchases and account withdrawals were not authorized at the time they were made. She also argues the evidence is insufficient to show she knew such purchases and account withdrawals involved a risk of loss or detriment to Ada Barendt's property. [¶ 11] Andrea Barendt contends the account withdrawals and the purchases were authorized because the general durable POA contained a laundry list of powers, which authorized her to do anything Ada Barendt could do. She further argues that if her acts were not actually authorized by the powers conferred to her in the POA, the State failed to provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to infer she had knowledge that she acted in an unauthorized manner, therefore defeating the knowledge requirement of the unauthorized act element. [¶ 12] A power of attorney is a written legal instrument authorizing another to act as one's agent; the agent holding the power of attorney is the attorney-in-fact. Estate of Littlejohn, 2005 ND 113, ¶ 7, 698 N.W.2d 923 (citing Estate of Mehus, 278 N.W.2d 625, 629 (N.D.1979)). Because a power of attorney creates an agency relationship, agency principles are applicable in determining the authority and duties of the attorney in fact. Id. An agency relationship involves both a contractual and a fiduciary relationship, and the interpretation of an attorney-in-fact's authority is controlled by the rules for construing contracts, unless the fiduciary relationship requires the application of a different rule. Id. (citing Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 1999 ND 39, ¶ 15, 590 N.W.2d 433). The clear and explicit language of a contract governs its interpretation and words are construed in their ordinary sense. Id. [¶ 13] Ada Barendt's POA provided in paragraph one: I, ADA R. BARENDT . . . do hereby appoint my granddaughter, Andrea Barendt . . . as my attorney-in-fact and agent, in my name and for my benefit. I intend to create a Durable Power of Attorney pursuant to Chapter 30.1-30 of the North Dakota Century Code. (Emphasis added). The clear and explicit language of the POA requires that acts by the agent be done for the benefit of Ada Barendt. The POA authorized Andrea Barendt to make account withdrawals, transfer funds between accounts, and even to purchase property using Ada Barendt's funds, but such acts were authorized only to the extent to which they were done for the benefit of Ada Barendt. [¶ 14] Andrea Barendt admitted during her testimony at trial she gambled with some of the money she withdrew from her grandmother's account. Andrea Barendt testified she purchased a pick-up truck with her grandmother's money and that she, and not her grandmother, enjoyed the benefits of using the vehicle. Lieutenant Taylor testified Andrea Barendt admitted to using a considerable amount of Ada Barendt's money on various types of illegal drugs. The statements regarding drug purchases were also recorded in the police report admitted into evidence, although Andrea Barendt denied having made such statements. Andrea Barendt testified she used Ada Barendt's funds to pay her own personal debts. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that at the time Andrea Barendt was paying her own debts, Ada Barendt's debts were going unpaid. Andrea Barendt also withdrew $50,000 in the form of a cashier's check and deposited the check into an account bearing only her name. She testified she took the money to fund her own start-up eBay internet business. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, a factfinder could reasonably infer Andrea Barendt knew the withdrawal and expenditure of Ada Barendt's funds was unauthorized when she withdrew and spent the funds because one could infer she knew these acts were not undertaken to benefit Ada Barendt. [¶ 15] Section 12.1-23-07, N.D.C.C., requires the defendant know of the risk of loss or detriment to property. The money withdrawn for gambling was subject to a risk of loss by the very nature of the use of the money. Purchasing illegal drugs with Ada Barendt's funds caused detriment to the total balance. Andrea Barendt's other withdrawals and checks for payment of her personal bills detrimentally affected Ada Barendt's account funds. A reasonable factfinder could also infer that withdrawing a $50,000 cashier's check to start her own eBay store put Ada Barendt's funds at risk. For all of these reasons, there was sufficient evidence to infer Andrea Barendt knew of risk of loss or detriment to Ada Barendt's property at the times she withdrew and spent Ada Barendt's funds. [¶ 16] Andrea Barendt contends the POA clearly and explicitly provided for her withdrawals and expenditures in paragraph A(13), which allows the attorney-in-fact: [t]o embark upon any program of gifts to [Ada Barendt's] children and their lawful descendants and to continue any program of gifts which [she] may have commenced and to make transfers in furtherance of any estate plan or pattern of gifts. [¶ 17] Based on this provision, Andrea Barendt argues her actions were expressly authorized because she testified her grandmother had created a pattern of gifting money, paying personal bills, and providing vehicles for Andrea Barendt and Andrea Barendt's father before the POA was in place. Thus, she argues her transactions amounted only to the continuance or furtherance of a gifting program her grandmother created before the POA was in place. She argues the State did not directly refute her testimony with regard to Ada Barendt's alleged practice of gifting, and therefore there was insufficient evidence to prove she knew the withdrawal and expenditure of Ada Barendt's funds was unauthorized. While Andrea Barendt couches the challenge in terms of evidentiary sufficiency, it is actually a challenge to the credibility of the evidence. [¶ 18] The judge in a bench trial is the factfinder, and the judge makes determinations of credibility. See, e.g., State v. Cox, 325 N.W.2d 181, 183 (N.D. 1982) (The trial court, as the fact-finder in [a bench trial] . . . [is] the ultimate judge of the credibility of witnesses.). Because the factfinder may make determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the judge is not required to believe a witness's testimony, even when no direct evidence is offered to the contrary. See id. With the exception of Andrea Barendt's testimony, there was no other evidence supporting a pattern of gifts. A reasonable judge or factfinder could have simply determined Andrea Barendt's testimony lacked credibility and thus inferred no pattern of gifting existed, making her actions unauthorized. [1]