Opinion
C.A. No.: ID No. 0005018953
Submitted: September 29. 2000
Decided: December 14, 2000
Upon Motion of Defendant to Dismiss — DENIED.
Stuart Sklut, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, for State of Delaware.
Clifford B. Hearn, Jr., Esq., of Clifford B. Hearn, Jr., P.A., attorney for defendant Reginald Johnson
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Reginald Johnson has moved to dismiss a charge of insurance fraud for which he has been indicted. He contends that essential acts supporting that charge were carried out in Pennsylvania. As a result, he argues, this Court lacks jurisdiction over him. The Court holds that Johnson committed sufficient acts in Delaware to give this Court jurisdiction over this offense.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The charge of insurance fraud, this case a felony, for which Johnson has been indicted reads as follows:
INSURANCE FRAUD in violation of Title 11 Del. C. § 913 of the Delaware Code of 1974, as amended.
REGINALD JOHNSON, on or about the 12th day of August, 1999, in the County of New Castle, State of Delaware, with the intent to defraud Tri-State Insurance Company, did present or cause to be presented any written or oral statement(s) in support of a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy, knowing that said statement contained false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim.
Indictment filed June 19, 2000.
Since Johnson presents his motion at this stage, before trial, it will be treated as a motion to dismiss at the end of the State's case. When a motion to dismiss is presented at trial at the end of the State's case, all facts and inferences will be considered in a light most favorable to the State.
See Crawford v. State, Del.Super., 297 A.2d 55 (1972).
Vouras v. State, Del.Supr., 452 A.2d 1165 (1982).
The facts made known to the Court at this stage reveal the following. Johnson is a resident of Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. Based on a Delaware State Police interview with a Patrick Gaghan, Johnson is reported to have come to him at a towing business in Philadelphia about a tow truck Johnson and another person co-owned. Caghan told the police Johnson was worried the tow truck would be repossessed because his partner was not making payments. Johnson wanted a place to store it and Gaghan offered his wife's house in New Jersey. Johnson drove the truck to New Jersey and came back to Philadelphia with Gaghan.
Later, according to the police report, Johnson came to Delaware. While at the Christiana Mall, he called the Delaware State Police to report the tow truck stolen. The truck was later found at Gaghan's wife's home in New Jersey. According to Johnson's motion, he communicated his claim from Philadelphia to the Tri-State Insurance Company at one of its offices in that state. All their communications occurred in Pennsylvania.
DISCUSSION A
To sustain a conviction, the State must prove every material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition to the material elements prescribed in the criminal statute of the charged offense, jurisdiction and venue must also be proven as elements of the offense. The Criminal Code provides that territorial jurisdiction can be proven by:
State v. Fleetwood, Del. Oyer Term., 65 A. 772(1906).
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section a person may be convicted under the law of this State of an offense committed by the person's own conduct or by the conduct of another for which the person in legally accountable if:
(1) Either the conduct or the result which is an element of the offense occurs within Delaware; or
(3) Conduct occurring within the State establishes complicity in the commission of, or an attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit, an offense in another jurisdiction which also is an offense under the law of Delaware;
The intent of the legislature in enacting § 204 was to expand criminal jurisdiction as widely as constitutionally possible.
Bright v. State, Del.Supr., 490 A.2d 564, 567(1985).
Based on this record, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, Johnson's conduct falls directly within the jurisdiction of Delaware courts under both subsections of § 204. If part of the conduct constituting the crime conclusively occurred in Delaware, Superior Court is empowered by the legislature with jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In Bright, the court interpreted § 204(a)(1) in conjunction with 11 Del. C. § 2736. That court concluded jurisdiction in Delaware is obtained either when conduct is committed in Delaware, as part of a multi-element crime, or a criminal offense begins in Delaware even though it is completed in another state.
Frazier v. State, Del.Supr., 609 A.2d 668 (1992).
Bright, 490 A.2d at 566-569.
Id.
In this case, the conduct occurring in Delaware was the filing of a false police report on August 8, 1999. This is a material element to the offense charged of insurance fraud, which is a multi-element crime. The insurance fraud statute provides, in part:
Johnson had been indicted for this offense, too, but obviously does not challenge this Court's jurisdiction over that charge.
(a) A person in guilty of insurance fraud when, with the intent to injure, defraud or deceive any insurer the person:
(1) Presents or causes to be presented to any insurer, any written or oral statement.., knowing that such statement contains false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim; * * *
(c) For the purposes of this section, "statement" includes, but is not limited to, a police report.
The statute outlawing insurance fraud, contains multiple elements: (1) an intent to injure, defraud or deceive, (2) an insurer or any person, (3) presenting or causing to be presented to any insurer any written or oral statements, (4) knowing it to be false and (5) concerning any fact material to such claim. Johnson's conduct in Delaware falls within at least one of these elements, that is, obtaining a false (because the truck was not stolen) Delaware State Police report. This was presented to the insurance company. He knew it was false when he got it and it was a part of his scheme — read intent — to defraud Tri State. In this way, his conduct in Delaware satisfies other elements of the crime of insurance fraud. Under § 204(a)(l) Johnson is subjected to the jurisdiction of Delaware, since part of one or more of the elements constituting the crime of insurance fraud was committed in this state.
Additionally, jurisdiction is obtained over the defendant under § 204(a)(3) because Johnson's conduct shows complicity in the commission of a crime in another jurisdiction. Complicity is involvement in a crime as principal or as accessory before the fact. Similarly, Pennsylvania has enacted a statute to punish perpetrators of insurance fraud, which is:
Black's Law Dictionary 712 (6th ed. 1990); 11 Del. C. § 271.
(A) Offense defined. — A person commits an offense if the person does any of the following:
(2) Knowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer or self-insured, presents or causes to be presented to any insurer or self-insured any statement forming a part of, or in support of, a claim that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim.
(L) DEFINITIONS. — As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"STATEMENT." Any oral or written presentation or other evidence of loss, injury or expense, including, but not limited to, any notice, statement, proof of loss, bill of lading, receipt for payment, invoice, account, estimate of property damages, bill for services, diagnosis, prescription, hospital or doctor records, X-ray, test result or computer-generated documents.Sheeran v. State simplifies jurisdictional issues pertaining to Delaware courts when an offense is committed in several states. In Sheeran, the defendant solicited a person in Pennsylvania to commit an assault with a dangerous instrument in Maryland. Several conversations about the details of the plan were held in Delaware. The court held that requirements of 11 Del. C. § 204(a)(3) were satisfied because the conversation about the details of the plan ensued in Delaware and were enough to demonstrate "complicity."
Del.Supr., 526 A.2d 886 (1987).
Id. at 890.
Id at 892-93.
Here, Johnson came to Delaware for the purposes of obtaining a police report in continuance or furtherance of the insurance fraud. The police report was essential to the completion of the crime. Without the police report, Johnson would not have been able to file a claim with the insurance carrier. The first step was the hiding of the truck. Next, he filed the false police report and then completed the crime by submitting it to the insurance company to fraudulently receive insurance benefits. Johnson came to Delaware with the purpose of completing the second step of the crime. This case is similar to Sheeran. Both the defendant in Sheeran and Johnson started their criminal activity outside of Delaware, then completed an act inside Delaware in furtherance of the plan to complete the crime. Therefore, this Court, like the Sheeran case, subjects Johnson to the laws of Delaware.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss of defendant Reginald Johnson is DENIED.