Youngstown Daily Legal News

9th District affirms grand theft ruling involving Little League funds

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 4, 2013

The 9th District Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion affirming the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas in a case involving the theft of funds from a Little League.

In 2001, Julie Wingate was indicted by the county court on a charge of grand theft for allegedly depriving a Little League of a portion of its funds.

Wingate served as the treasurer for the Cuyahoga Falls South Little League from 2007 to 2009.

She pleaded not guilty to the charge and, following a jury trial, was found guilty and sentenced in April 2012.

Upon appeal, Wingate assigned five errors to the trial court, one of which stated that her conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.

In her written opinion on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel, Presiding Judge Carla Moore wrote that the panel disagreed with the allegation.

According to a summary of the events, when Wingate took over as treasurer in 2007 she received $24,000 in funds from the league’s account to be used for the league’s expenses.

Bruce Dickon, president of the league, requested the league’s bank statements and accounting records in 2009 when he was preparing to retire.

He testified at trial that Wingate was uncooperative with providing the information but later provided him with an itemized ledger of expenses.

The ledger indicated that approximately $1,800 was in the league account at that time.

Noting discrepancies in the ledger and the fact that Wingate never provided the bank records he requested, Dickon took the ledger to the police department and the league’s board.

Upon Dickon’s resignation, John Potok took over as league president and continued the investigation into the financial records and also notified police.

A detective who investigated the league’s concerns regarding its funds interviewed Wingate regarding the ledger and bank records.

The detective’s testimony revealed that during this meeting, Wingate informed him that the records would reveal payments made to her personal credit card.

She stated the payments were made to reimburse her for purchases she made on behalf of the league, though she admitted she could not provide receipts.

“Ultimately, Ms. Wingate advised the detective that ‘she might have padded some of the credit card payments’ by approximately 50 percent over what she was due for reimbursements,” wrote Moore.

The detective informed Wingate that he had obtained the bank records and that there were several payments made to Target from the league’s account. Wingate denied making any payments to the store.

Several checks had also been made out to “Cash” totaling $2,700. Wingate said she could not recall why she had obtained the cash withdrawals.

The detective testified that, in total, there were 22 checks in the bank records that he concluded did not coincide with the ledger.

More than $4,000 was paid to “Cardmember Services,” one check was paid to AT&T and one was even made out to QVC, the online shopping network.

The state presented as evidence Wingate’s Visa statements which displayed payments that correlated with the amount of seven of the checks.

“In arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction, Ms. Wingate maintains that it was not beyond the scope of the league’s consent for her to make reimbursements to herself through utilization of the league’s funds to make her personal payments,” wrote Moore. “The above evidence suggests that she was not due reimbursements.”

During his testimony, Dickon stated he knew of no reason why Wingate, who had control of the funds, would need to reimburse herself for any league expenses.

“We conclude that there existed evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that Ms. Wingate intended to purposefully deprive the League of its property by knowingly exerting control over the league’s funds in a way that was beyond the scope of the league’s consent,” stated Moore.

Wingate proceeded to argue that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it admitted evidence that was never authenticated.

Exhibit 6 was the ledger Wingate provided to Dickon in response to his request for the financial records.

“Based upon Mr. Dickon’s testimony, there was sufficient evidence to allow the question as to the authenticity of Ms. Wingate’s ledger to reach the jury,” the appellate panel held. “We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the admission of the ledger.”

Wingate, however, focused her argument on the traceability of the exhibit. She argued the state did not demonstrate how it came to be in the possession of the police department.

“The chain of custody relates to the authentication or identification process set forth in Evid.R. 901(A),” explained Moore. “The state is not required to prove a perfect, unbroken chain of custody.”

The court of appeals held that a break in the chain of custody, if any, goes to the weight or credibility of the evidence, and not its admissibility.

“Because Ms. Wingate’s assignment of error pertains to admissibility and not weight, her chain of custody argument does not support a finding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the ledger,” wrote Moore.

Wingate assigned three other errors in her appeal alleging that her conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the trial court failed to prevent excluded evidence from reaching the jury during closing arguments and that the trial court’s comments to the jury were prejudicial to her right to a fair, impartial jury trial.

Overall, the appellate panel concluded that all of her arguments had no merit.

It held that her assessments were either inferential or lacked sufficient evidence to establish a prejudice on the part of the court.

The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas was affirmed.

Judges Beth Whitmore and Jennifer Hensal concurred.

The case is cited State v. Wingate, 2013-Ohio-2079.

[Back]