Opinion
No. 3-604 / 02-0707
Filed August 27, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, James W. Brown, Judge.
Kendall Anderson appeals from his convictions for first-degree theft and three counts of security fraud. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Mains of Mains Law Office, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, and Elisabeth S. Reynoldson, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Kendall Anderson appeals from his convictions for first-degree theft, in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1(3), 714.2(1), and 714.3 (1999), and three counts of security fraud, in violation of sections 502.401(2) and 502.65. His claim that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence is reviewed for corrections of errors at law. State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Iowa 2002). We review his claim that the trial court erred by excluding exculpatory evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Axiotis, 569 N.W.2d 813, 815 (Iowa 1997).
Anderson first argues the State failed to prove he made false representations or that he failed to correct any material false belief held by his victims. In the alternative, he argues that if he did engage in any such action, the false representations or false beliefs were not material, and none of his victims relied on any false representation or false belief.
We will uphold a verdict if substantial record evidence supports it. Webb, 648 N.W.2d at 75. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the evidence in the record. Id. at 76. In reviewing the record, we conclude sufficient evidence supports Anderson's convictions.
Anderson engaged in a series of deceptive or misleading acts. He induced his victims, three individuals associated with an implement dealership, to pay $25,000 for what they believed were stock certificates in Organic Beef Consultant (OBC). Despite the fact that OBC was about to be dissolved, Anderson led his victims to believe they were investing in a growing and viable company that had in place consignment agreements with several beef feeding operations. He purported to need a large amount of farm equipment to implement OBC's feeding operation, and implied OBC had the resources to purchase in excess of one million dollars in farm equipment. This ruse was furthered when Anderson sent a forged letter vouching for OBC's creditworthiness. Anderson provided forged stock certificates to his victims and deposited his victims' checks into accounts not belonging to OBC. After OBC was formally dissolved, Anderson continued to represent to the victims that it was viable and financially sound. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion these were material misrepresentations and were relied on by the victims in making their investment decisions.
Anderson next contends the court erred in excluding evidence consisting of equipment purchase agreements with his victims' company several months after the crime with which he was charged. Assuming arguendo that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence, we conclude the error would be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Anderson's guilt. See State v. Belken, 633 N.W.2d 786, 797 (Iowa 2001) ("Ordinarily, when the State's evidence of guilt is overwhelming, we deem a trial error to be harmless.")