State v. Seibel
| Decision Date | 22 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2018-0336,2018-0336 |
| Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. Elizabeth SEIBEL |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Gordon J. MacDonald, attorney general (Brandon H. Garod, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.
Thomas Barnard, senior assistant appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.
The defendant, Elizabeth Seibel, appeals her convictions, following a bench trial in the Superior Court (Ignatius, J.), on one count of financial exploitation of an elderly person, see RSA 631:9, I(a)(2) (2016), and two counts of theft by unauthorized taking, see RSA 637:3 (2016). She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on all three convictions. Because the State presented sufficient evidence to support each of the defendant's convictions, we affirm.
The trial court found or could have found the following facts. The victim is an elderly widow and the defendant's mother-in-law. In November 2012, the victim and her husband moved to New Hampshire to be close to their son and his wife, the defendant. About one month later, the victim's husband died. At that time, the victim had about $11,300 in her personal checking account and owned four certificates of deposit (CDs) totaling about $110,000. She also received approximately $3,500 each month in social security, pension, and annuity payments. The victim had concerns about whether these financial resources were sufficient to support her for the rest of her life.
Shortly after her husband's death, the victim opened another checking account (Account #1), into which she deposited thousands of dollars. The victim also executed a durable general power of attorney granting her son authority to act on her behalf and authorizing the defendant to act as her agent if her son became "unavailable or unable" to do so.
In January 2013, the defendant and the son added their names to Account #1 without the victim's knowledge or consent. When the victim discovered the arrangement, the defendant and the son told her that co-owning the account would make it "easier to pay the bills." Although the victim believed that the defendant and the son were contributing money to the account, neither did so. In February 2013, the victim, with the assistance of the defendant, redeemed one of her CDs to pay her husband's funeral expenses.
In March 2013, the victim moved into a condominium that was closer to the defendant and the son, with whom she regularly visited. The victim lived independently, paying her own bills and shopping for herself. She enjoyed living in her condominium, but was concerned about her ability to afford it.
In October 2013, the defendant began transferring money online from Account #1 to her own personal checking account. Between October 2013 and May 2014, the defendant transferred $12,000 from Account #1 to her own account in separate online transactions of $1,000 or $2,000. The victim did not authorize any of these online transfers and, at the time, she was unaware that they had occurred.
In March 2014, the defendant and the son informed the victim that they planned to purchase a house in Conway and asked her to move in with them and pay rent equal to the monthly amount she paid for her condominium. The victim visited the house with the defendant and the son, but was unimpressed. Afterwards, she told them that she believed the house needed too much work and would cost too much in renovations. Despite these concerns, the victim agreed to move into the house, believing that her rental payments would help the defendant and the son.
Shortly thereafter, the defendant and the son asked the victim to sign various documents without giving her an opportunity to review them, including a special power of attorney (SPOA) granting the defendant authority to purchase the house on the victim's behalf. The victim was unaware that she had authorized the defendant to purchase the house on her behalf. She had no interest in the Conway house and never agreed to purchase it with her own money.
As of May 2014, the defendant had redeemed each of the victim's three remaining CDs, without the victim's knowledge or consent, and transferred the proceeds into Account #1. In early May 2014, the defendant and the son opened another joint account (Account #2) without the victim's knowledge or consent, naming themselves and the victim as co-owners. The defendant then began transferring money from Account #1 to Account #2. Throughout its existence, the only source of funds deposited into Account #2 was Account #1, which, as previously noted, held the victim's money. The only debit card associated with Account #2 was issued in the defendant's name.
In late May 2014, the closing for the Conway house took place. The defendant attended without the victim and used her authority under the SPOA to execute legal documents obligating the victim, then eighty-four years old, to a thirty-year mortgage. The victim was unaware that the defendant had purchased the house on her behalf.
In June 2014, all of the parties moved into the Conway house. The defendant then began spending money from Account #2 to pay for various personal and household expenses. In total, and unbeknownst to the victim, the defendant issued approximately $42,000 in checks and made approximately $33,000 in debit purchases from Account #2. The defendant used some of the funds in Account #2 to renovate and furnish the house. The defendant also spent some of the funds on goods and services that were personal to her, such as her hairstylist and her personal credit card and cell phone bills. In all, after January 2015, the defendant spent approximately $2,762 on expenses that were unrelated to the Conway house. As of May 2015, the victim's financial resources were essentially depleted.
Although the victim had agreed to share some household expenses with the defendant and the son, she never authorized the defendant's use of the money in Account #2. The defendant's use of this money was also "radically different" from the victim's personal spending habits. The victim "made regular payments every month with checks [from Account #1] ... to a small number of vendors with regular recurring identities" and was "very careful in writing down what the reason for the payments were." By contrast, the defendant's expenditures from Account #2 included payments to a wide variety of vendors for goods and services that the victim did not normally purchase.
The defendant's transfers from Account #1 also differed from the victim's spending habits. Whenever the victim gave the defendant or the son money or reimbursed them for certain expenses, she issued checks to them or gave them cash. The victim tended to make such gifts and reimbursements in precise amounts, at irregular intervals, and for specific reasons, which she often detailed on the checks that she issued. She did not transfer money between accounts online, as she generally did not use computers and was unfamiliar with online banking. By contrast, the defendant's transfers from Account #1 to her own personal account were made at consistent intervals, in "broad ... and very general" amounts of $1,000 and $2,000, which did not appear to correspond to any particular expense incurred by the victim.
While the victim resided in the Conway house, the defendant and the son prevented her from examining her bank statements. On one occasion, they showed the victim one statement, but due to their resistance, the victim never asked again. The victim was also told that the defendant and the son cashed her remaining CDs to settle a lawsuit on the victim's behalf when, in fact, no such lawsuit had ever been brought against her.
In June 2015, the victim contacted an attorney after discovering that she owned the Conway house. Following a police investigation, the defendant was charged with one count of theft by unauthorized taking in connection with money totaling more than $1,500 that the defendant transferred from Account #1 to her own account between October 2013 and May 2014; one count of theft by unauthorized taking relating to purchases totaling more than $1,500 that the defendant made from Account #2 between May 2014 and June 2015; and one count of financial exploitation of an elderly person with respect to purchases totaling more than $1,500 from Account #2 after January 1, 2015.
After the State rested, and again at the close of the evidence, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict her. The trial court denied the motions and convicted the defendant on all three counts. The trial court likewise denied the defendant's post-trial motion to set aside the verdicts. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on all three of her convictions. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Saintil-Brown, 172 N.H. 110, 117, 210 A.3d 213 (2019). When considering such challenges, we objectively review the entire record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State. Id. We examine each item of evidence in the context of the entire case, and not in isolation. Id. The trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from facts proved as well as from facts found as the result of other inferences, provided they can be reasonably drawn therefrom. Id. Because the defendant chose to present a case, we review the entire trial record to determine the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. The defendant bears the burden of proving that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt. Id.
If the evidence presented at trial consists of both direct and circumstantial evidence, we apply the standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial