Court Opinion

ID: 9794567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:08:06.941614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.054921
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I do not join the opinion of the Court because, although it accurately sets forth the standard for review of claimed error based upon insufficiency of the evidence, it fails to properly apply it.
The record before us adequately supports the conclusion reached by the jury in rendering its verdict that Hillhaven did not get what it bargained for, and that it sustained a pecuniary loss.
The evidence is clear that Hillhaven contracted and paid for the services of Dan Johnson, an experienced maintenance man, to work full-time at its facility, and to perform all maintenance work. Instead, it got someone else, who only worked part-time. Furthermore, pay at the rate of 40 hours per week was obtained from Hillha-ven and shared by all three defendants. *52This they accomplished by means of deceit, which consisted of someone’s punching Dan Johnson’s time card for him when he was not in fact on the premises. Furthermore, there was evidence that not all of the maintenance work was done, and that some of it had to be done over, at additional expense.
I concur in the conclusion of the majority that the conduct of the prosecutor at the time of closing argument constitutes prejudicial error, and for that reason would reverse and remand for the purpose of a new trial.