People v. Benson
| Decision Date | 06 August 1962 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7764 |
| Citation | 206 Cal.App.2d 519,23 Cal.Rptr. 908 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ralph R. BENSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Cantillon & Cantillon, Richard H. Cantillon, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Harry Wood and Harry B. Sondheim, Deputy Dist. Attys.
Benson, Isaac Matloff and Edwin T. Harder were charged by information with conspiracy to commit grand theft and to violate section 556 1 of the Insurance Code (count I), in count II with a violation of section 556, supra, on or about March 10, 1960, and in count III with another violation of section 556 on or about April 28, 1960. After the commencement of trial to a jury, Matloff and Harder entered guilty pleas to attempt to violate section 556. Trial without a jury was then continued as to Benson only; he was adjudged guilty on all three counts. The appeal is from the judgment (order granting probation) and the order denying a new trial.
Benson is an attorney; Matloff, a chiropractor, and Harder, an osteopath On December 11, 1959, one Buchholz was involved in a rear-end collision. He sustained no personal injuries, although one Orr became liable to Buchholz for property damage to Buchholz' car. Three days later Matloff came to Buchholz' home; he was referred to Buchholz by an employee of the agency where the car was taken for repairs. The employee had been promised $25 by Matloff for every rear-end collision case referred to him. Matloff told Buchholz, whom he had never previously met, that the latter 'could make some money on this accident because it was a rear-end collision, and if I (he) would say I (he) had a whiplash, that there would be no way to prove otherwise.' Buchholz was also told that Benson would be the attorney handling the case and that he would be contacted by Benson within a few days. Buchholz advised Matloff that he would think it over. Two days after Matloff's visit, a Mr. Potter from Benson's office called at Buchholz' home. He filled out some papers and asked Buchholz to sign them; Buchholz said he wanted to 'sleep on it' before employing Benson. Buchholz then went to the police who, in turn, contacted the District Attorney's office; Buchholz was told to play along--or, in effect, to act as a decoy. Potter paid Buchholz a second visit about a week later. Buchholz signed certain papers and explained how the accident happened. Thereafter, Matloff came to Buchholz' house on six or seven occasions; only one treatment was given, however. Buchholz told Matloff that he was not hurt; but Matloff stated that the bigger his (Matloff's) bill, the bigger would be Buchholz' recovery. Benson admits that the medical bills and reports as to Buchholz were 'undeniably false.' One such bill stated that Buchholz had been given 26 treatments. It was forwarded by Benson on March 10, 1960, to Orr's insurance carrier. After the company requested an itemized bill, on March 23, a more detailed bill was forwarded by Benson--it made reference to various dates when Buchholz had been assertedly treated by Matloff.
On March 4, 1960, Buchholz took Robert Meng, an investigator from the District Attorney's office, to see Matloff. Posing as a person who had been recently involved in a rear-end collision with one Hawkins, although such was not the fact, Meng told Matloff that he had not been injured; Buchholz had previously advised him, however, that he (Meng) might make some money and Matloff agreed. In this regard, Matloff stated: When mention was made of getting an additional doctor, Matloff said that he and Harder had been working with Benson for quite some time; that Harder would give the same diagnosis after he had seen Matloff's report. Matloff took some X-rays; he then telephoned Benson who talked to Meng. Benson asked Meng if he was working; when Meng said 'No,' Benson said, 'You were working.' Meng replied, 'Well, okay.' Meng was afterwards seen by Harder. As in the instance of Buchholz, Benson now admits that Matloff and Harder submitted false reports for service rendered Meng. These bills and reports were forwarded by Benson to the Insurance carrier for Hawkins.
Although not specifically charged in the information, evidence was introduced (apparently without objection) that Benson had forwarded to still another insurance carrier a false report of Dr. Harder pertaining to one Villabisencio. It appears that Villabisencio received a bill from Harder for 14 visits, whereas the latter had seen Villabisencio not more than 5 times. When Villabisencio telephoned Benson about the matter, Benson said: 'Well, you sign it, I am your attorney, and if I tell you to sign it, you sign it; don't sign anything else unless I tell you.' Villabisencio signed the bill; subsequently Benson submitted to the insurance company a bill similar to that signed by the client.
Much of the People's case against Benson consisted of certain recorded conversations he had with Buchholz and Meng. On January 14, 1960, Buchholz went to Benson's office on order of the District Attorney's office; prior thereto a miniphone was installed on his person. Benson told Buchholz that he was in touch with California Casualty, the insurance carrier for Orr, and that he would also be in touch with Matloff. Buchholz testified that in response to Benson's question he told appellant that he was not hurt. 2 In February or March Buchholz had another conversation with Benson, this time by telephone, wherein he told Benson that his neck and back were not injured.
On March 25 Meng telephoned Benson. The conversation was recorded, the transcription thereof being as follows:
On April 18 Matloff signed a medical report pertaining to Meng. Various questions in the report were answered falsely--these false answers, according to Meng, he did not furnish to Matloff. The next day, pursuant to Matloff's suggestion, Meng took one or two copies of this report to Benson's office. At that time he had a conversation (likewise recorded) with the appellant who, while under direct examination, read its transcription into evidence:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mau
...See State v, Mark Marks, PA, 698 So.2d 533 (Fla.1997); Kiddie v. State, 1977 OK CR 301, 574 P.2d 1042, 1047;People v. Benson, 206 Cal.App.2d 519, 23 Cal.Rptr. 908 (1962). But see People v. Learman, 281 A.D. 583, 586–87, 121 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1953) (concluding that there was insufficient evidenc......
-
State v. Mark Marks, P.A.
...that the statute applies to any claim made pursuant to an insurance policy with the intent to defraud. Cf. People v. Benson, 206 Cal.App.2d 519, 23 Cal.Rptr. 908, 916-17 (1962)(finding statute similar to section 817.234(1) applied to every person who had intent to defraud), cert. denied, 37......
-
People v. Gregory
...therefore properly at issue as a question of fact probative on the question of defendant's intent. (See, e.g., People v. Benson (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 519, 529, 23 Cal.Rptr. 908, and authorities cited [in case of criminal fraud, questions of knowledge and intent are for the jury].) It was op......
-
People v. Blick
...to defraud." (People v. Scofield (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1025-1026, 95 Cal.Rptr. 405 (Scofield); People v. Benson (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 519, 529, 23 Cal.Rptr. 908 (Benson), overruled on other grounds in People v. Perez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 769, 776, 44 Cal.Rptr. 326, 401 P.2d 934.) 7 The cle......