Opinion
I.D. No. 9904003304
Submitted: October 24, 2001
Decided: September 7, 2001
JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOLLOWING NON-JURY TRIAL
Paul R. Wallace, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Attorney for the State.
Raymond M. Radulski, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender, Attorney for the Defendant.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
At all times relevant to this action, the Defendant, Charles Limprun, was the owner of Richardson Park Auto Service, an auto repair business. The charges brought against him stem from two separate incidents that occurred at or near this business. The first such incident occurred on April 29, 1998, and involved an alleged carjacking. On that date, an unidentified male stole Mr. Limprun's vehicle, which was parked in front of the business. That same day the Defendant reported to his insurance company, Ohio Casualty Insurance, that he suffered losses of $3,000 in cash and $6,000 to $9,000 worth of tools.
The second incident occurred thirty days later, on May 19, 1998. It involved an alleged burglary at Richardson Park Auto Service. Following the report of the incident to police, Mr. Limprun submitted claims to Ohio Casualty of more than $50,000 in automotive tools and diagnostic equipment.
These claims were deemed suspicious by both Ohio Casualty and the Delaware State Police. As a result, the Fraud Unit of the Delaware Insurance Department proceeded to investigate the claims. Following these investigations, Mr. Limprun was indicted on a total of six charges. He was charged in both incidents with one count of Insurance Fraud in violation of 11 Del. C. § 913, Attempted Theft-Felony in violation of 11 Del. C. § 531 and § 841, and Falsely Reporting an Incident in violation of 11 Del. C. § 1245.
Mr. Limprun waived his right to a trial by jury and a trial before the Court was held on April 11 — 13, 2000. Following the presentation of all the evidence, the Court reserved its decision and ordered post trial submissions from the parties. The aforementioned memoranda having been filed, that which follows is the Court's resolution of the charges brought against Mr. Limprun.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Carjacking
Certain facts are undisputed. On April 29, 1998, Mr. Limprun's sport-utility vehicle was parked in front of Richardson Park Auto Service with the keys in the ignition. An unknown perpetrator entered the vehicle and drove off the premises. Mr. Limprun saw the vehicle leaving and pursued it on foot. He subsequently caught the vehicle and was dragged a short distance down the street before he let go. An employee of Mr. Limprun, Leslie McGonigle, witnessed the theft of the vehicle and gave chase in her own vehicle. She was unable to keep up with the stolen car and eventually lost track of it.
Corporal Bartkowski of the Delaware State Police was in the area on unrelated police business and responded to the business shortly after the carjacking took place. She searched the neighborhood in her patrol car without success. The vehicle was subsequently found in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. However, the tools, money and wallet that Mr. Limprun alleges were in the vehicle at the time it was stolen were never recovered.
Mr. Limprun called Ohio Casualty Insurance to report the theft of the vehicle and its contents that same day. Ohio Casualty requested receipts evidencing purchase of the tools in question to determine their value. Mr. Limprun then contacted Mr. Bill Ganc who was the sales representative with whom Mr. Limprun regularly did business when he sought to purchase tools. Mr. Ganc testified that Mr. Limprun was a "tool junkie", buying large quantities of tools of only the highest quality. In that regard, Mr. Ganc opined that Mr. Limprun's tool collection likely had a value of over $100,000. Mr. Ganc responded to Mr. Limprun's request by stating that he did not have the records, nor did he have time to compile such a list. Instead, he gave Mr. Limprun a receipt book and told him to make out his own receipts.
While the parties do not disagree as to what happened up to this point, their views contrast sharply in regards to what tools, if any, were actually in the vehicle when it was stolen and the value of any such tools. There was also a dispute concerning whether Mr. Limprun's wallet was actually inside the truck, and if so, how much money was in the wallet.
The State presented the testimony of Corporal Bartkowski who indicated that Mr. Limprun told her that he had just picked up a tool order that day from Mr. Ganc. However, Mr. Ganc denied that Mr. Limprun obtained any tools from him on that date. Based on this and other factors, Corporal Bartkowski testified that she began to question whether Mr. Limprun's claims were authentic early on in her investigation.
Next the State called Ms. McGonigle who testified that there were no tools in the truck or that he had picked up any tools that morning. Instead, she stated that he had been to breakfast with an acquaintance. However, upon cross examination, Ms. McGonigle admitted that she had not actually been in Mr. Limprun's vehicle that day, but "to her knowledge" there were no tools in his truck at that time.
Detective Baldo Sebastianelli of the Delaware Insurance Department, Fraud Unit, testified that he interviewed one of Mr. Limprun's former employees, Alan Kelsey, in the course of investigating the carjacking and the burglary. Regarding the carjacking, Mr. Kelsey told him that there were no tools in Mr. Limprun's vehicle the morning it was stolen and that Mr. Limprun would have never left money sitting on the seat of the vehicle. Mr. Kelsey also told him that Mr. Limprun was using crack cocaine heavily and was in debt.
The Defense called Mr. Limprun's neighbor, Jason Malcom and one of his customers, Lee Schwamman. Mr. Malcom testified that he loaded a toolbox full of tools into Mr. Limprun's vehicle the night before the carjacking. Mrs. Schwamman testified that on the morning of the carjacking, Mr. Limprun had been to her house to work on one of her cars. While there, she had the opportunity to view a toolbox inside of Mr. Limprun's vehicle. When cross-examined about the date upon which Mr. Limprun was at her home, Ms. Schwamman unequivocally stated that it was in fact on April 29, 1998.
The Burglary
When Trooper Peter Sawyer responded to the report of the burglary, Mr. Limprun told him that the perpetrator of the crime had come in through the back door. Mr. Limprun indicated that when locking up the night before, someone had neglected to put a bar in place that would sufficiently lock the door. He reported further that that particular door was not connected to an alarm system, as was much of the rest of the business. Because of these factors, Mr. Limprun told Trooper Sawyer that he thought that the burglary was an "inside job." Mr. Limprun subsequently filed insurance claims for the lost tools and diagnostic equipment in excess of $50,000. The perpetrator of this crime has never been apprehended. Nor have the tools been recovered.
In support of its case against Mr. Limprun, the State called a former employee of Mr. Limprun's, Alan Chance. Mr. Chance testified that the morning after the burglary, he looked in Mr. Limprun's toolbox and there appeared to be some wrenches missing. Mr. Limprun subsequently told Mr. Chance to "hide" the remainder of the tools in a different toolbox. His stated reason for doing so was because an Ohio Casualty representative was coming to the business the next day to investigate the claim. Detective Sebastianelli likewise testified that Mr. Kelsey had told him of Mr. Limprun's instruction to Mr. Kelsey and Mr. Chance to take the tools out of one tool box and put them into another. Mr. Chance further stated Mr. Limprun told him that the insurance claim that he was going to file with Ohio Casualty would exceed $50,000.
DISCUSSION
In a criminal case without a jury, the Court, as the trier of fact, must presume that the defendant is innocent of the crimes charged. Only after the State has proved every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt may the defendant be found guilty. State v. Row, Del. Super., Cr. A. Nos. K93-09-0356, 0357, Steele, J. (Feb. 1, 1994) (Mem. Op. at 1). "Reasonable doubt does not mean a vague, speculative doubt, nor a mere possible doubt, but a substantial doubt; it is such a doubt as intelligent, reasonable and impartial men may honestly entertain after a careful and conscientious consideration of the evidence in the case." State v. Matushefske, Del. Super., 215 A.2d 443, 449 (1965).
Whether or not Mr. Limprun may be found guilty of any one or more of the offenses for which he is charged depends on a resolution of the disputed facts as presented to the Court. More specifically, the resolution of the charges associated with the carjacking depends on whether the tools and cash were in Mr. Limprun's vehicle when it was taken on April 29, 1998. Resolution of the charges associated with the alleged burglary is contingent upon whether a burglary actually took place on May 19, 1998. Stated differently, did Mr. Limprun falsely state that he had tools in his car on April 29 and if a burglary actually took place on May 19.
Regarding the carjacking, the State has proved that there was a theft of Mr. Limprun's vehicle on April 29, 1998, and that he made a claim for the value of the vehicle, tools and the money that he alleged was in the vehicle. The State has also proved that Mr. Limprun gave conflicting estimates to the police and investigator as to what was in the vehicle and the value of that property. The nature of his activities that morning was likewise called into question.
As to the burglary, the State proved that Mr. Limprun reported the burglary and the alleged theft of the tools on May 19, 1998. In addition, it proved that point of entry was the back door and that the entry was not a forcible one. The State proved that some tools were moved from one tool box to another and that conflicting stories were introduced regarding the purpose of that move. Finally, it was established that the tools were never found; although there was some testimony that Mr. Limprun had them in a box in the basement of one of his houses.
It is in light of these facts and evidence that the Court must decide the present controversy. Unfortunately for the State, the Court must conclude that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Limprun acted or intended to injure, that his statements were false or misleading, or that he falsely reported either incident. The proof simply was not there. Both sets of charges were dependent upon proof that the tools were not stolen but hidden by Mr. Limprun. Then and only then would the State have established the requisite intent for fraud, false statements and an effort to obtain the property of another.
The State's arguments at trial were not persuasive. Its argument suggested that the Defendant had to establish that he did not commit the offenses charged. To the contrary, the Defendant did not have to prove that the statements that he made were in fact true. Nor did he have to prove that the tools were stolen. That was the State's burden. Conflicting statements are not enough, particularly given the equivocal nature of the testimony by Mr. Limprun's staff and tool supplier, Mr. Ganc. Moreover, given the number of tools that Mr. Limprun purchased, the frequency of those purchases and the associated record keeping or lack thereof, there is reasonable doubt of the Defendant's guilt.
CONCLUSION
If this were a civil case, the Court would have to conclude that the State had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant had engaged in fraud. However, in a criminal case, proof that the Defendant was probably guilty is not enough. State v. Johnson, Del. Super., Cr. A. Nos. IN00060901, IN0005018953, Herlihy, J. (Dec. 14, 2000) (Mem. Op. at 1). As a result, the Court must find that the State has failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant committed the acts set forth in the indictment. I must therefore conclude as a matter of law that the Defendant is not guilty of the charges in question.