MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2016 ME 46
Docket: Ken-15-32
Argued: December 9, 2015
Decided: March 31, 2016
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
CRYSTAL HODSDON
JABAR, J.
[¶1] Crystal Hodsdon appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count
of theft by deception (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 354(1)(B)(1) (2015), in the
Superior Court (Kennebec County, Billings, J.) after a bench trial. Hodsdon was
charged with improperly accepting more than $109,003 in benefits from
MaineCare by misrepresenting that her two minor children lived with her
fifty percent or more of the time. We affirm her conviction.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The following facts are taken from the trial record, and we review them
“in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether the fact-finder could
rationally find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Woodard, 2013 ME 36, ¶ 19, 68 A.3d 1250 (quotation marks omitted). From
May 2009 until April 2013, Hodsdon misrepresented the composition of her
2
household to obtain MaineCare benefits. During that period, she was employed as
an eligibility specialist with the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS).
[¶3] A divorce judgment entered in 2008 provided the following schedule of
residence for her two minor children: the children would reside with their father
from Sunday evening until Friday evening, and with Hodsdon from Friday evening
until Sunday evening. The former spouses split time with the children on holidays
and school vacations, and Hodsdon was granted primary residence during one
uninterrupted two-week period each summer vacation. Hodsdon and her
ex-husband generally adhered strictly to this residence schedule, but the children
did spend Sunday evenings with Hodsdon for an unspecified period of time.
[¶4] In 2009, Hodsdon married a man who was disabled and receiving
MaineCare benefits. After the marriage, DHHS notified Hodsdon’s new husband
that the addition of her salary to the household income made him ineligible for
MaineCare benefits. Hodsdon, on her new husband’s behalf, requested an
administrative hearing to appeal DHHS’s action to terminate her new husband’s
benefits. At the hearing, Hodsdon insisted that her children should have been
considered part of her new husband’s household, because the two children lived
with the couple “Friday, Saturday, Sunday, every other Monday, and two . . . half
days during the week.”
3
[¶5] Hodsdon indicated on all documents she submitted to DHHS that the
children were living in her household. While the hearing officer’s decision was
still pending, Hodsdon submitted two forms to add the children to her household,
stating on the forms that she and her ex-husband had the children “half/half.”
Hodsdon added the children to the household in order to establish eligibility for
Family Related 1931 MaineCare benefits.1 Hodsdon’s supervisor at DHHS
managed her MaineCare case. Hodsdon frequently told her supervisor that she had
the children for more time than her ex-husband. Hodsdon submitted a meal
schedule to DHHS to indicate that she provided meals to her children five to six
days per week. She also submitted a letter in which she characterized the
children’s residence as follows: “[i]t works out that one week I have them Sun,
Wed, [T]hurs, Fri, [S]at. The next week I have them [M]on, Tues, Fri, [S]at.”
[¶6] After a four-day jury-waived trial, the court entered a judgment
convicting Hodsdon of theft by deception (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 354(1)(B)(1).
In its ruling, the court determined that the children did not reside with Hodsdon
“anything close to [fifty] percent of the time,” and that she therefore deceived
DHHS by misrepresenting the number of people in her household in order to
receive MaineCare benefits. The court sentenced Hodsdon to six years in prison,
1
Family Related 1931 MaineCare is distinct from the Disability Related MaineCare benefits that
Hodsdon’s second husband was receiving.
4
with all but twenty-one months suspended and three years of probation, and
ordered her to pay $50,000 in restitution. Hodsdon timely appealed. See M.R.
App. P. 2.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶7] Hodsdon argues that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that her deception resulted in the taking of the property of another and that the
evidence is not sufficient to support the court’s determination that the children did
not reside with her “anything close to [fifty] percent of the time.”
[¶8] We defer to all credibility determinations made by the fact-finder.
State v. Black, 2000 ME 211, ¶ 17, 763 A.2d 109. It is the prerogative of the
fact-finder “to resolve conflicting issues of fact.” Wilson v. Gordon, 354 A.2d 398,
403 (Me. 1976).
[¶9] In this case, the alleged deception resulted in Hodsdon’s receipt of
Family Related 1931 MaineCare benefits. A defendant is guilty of theft by
deception if that person “obtains or exercises control over property of another as a
result of deception and with intent to deprive the other person of the property.”
17-A M.R.S. § 354(1)(A) (2015). The false impression that a defendant makes in
commission of a theft by deception may relate to their intention or other state of
5
mind. State v. Barker, 387 A.2d 14, 16-18 (Me. 1978).2 If a parent is otherwise
eligible for Family Related 1931 MaineCare benefits, but custody of the children is
split with the other parent, the children must live with the applying parent at least
fifty percent of the time for the parent to be eligible for benefits. 14 C.M.R. 10 144
332, Part 3, §4.1.1 (2015).
[¶10] On the documentation she submitted to MaineCare, Hodsdon
consistently exaggerated the amount of time the children resided with her. The
court heard testimony that although there were exceptions, the general rule was
that the children only spent weekends with Hodsdon. While the children did spend
Sunday evenings with Hodsdon for an unspecified period of time, this would have
added only an additional half-day to the time they spent in her residence. DHHS
employees testified that occasional changes in the duration of residence would not
affect a parent’s eligibility unless those changes became more permanent.
Although there was conflicting testimony regarding the application of the
fifty-percent rule, most witnesses testified that if children resided with an applicant
predominantly on the weekends only, the children would not be included in the
applicant’s household for the purpose of MaineCare eligibility.
2
The court in State v. Barker was interpreting a prior version of 17-A M.R.S. § 354. Although the
statute has since been amended, the amendments have no effect on the analysis.
6
[¶11] The court acknowledged that the lack of certainty concerning the
parameters of the fifty-percent rule would be problematic in a case where a
defendant was close to meeting the threshold, but found that Hodsdon was
“nowhere close” to meeting it. By Hodsdon’s most favorable calculations, she
would have missed the fifty-percent threshold by more than three days per month,
or by more than one month per year. Given the testimony described above, it was
therefore rational for the court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hodsdon had
not met the fifty-percent rule, had misrepresented the amount of time her children
spent in her residence, and was not entitled to MaineCare benefits. Because there
was sufficient evidence to find that Hodsdon committed theft by deception when
she intentionally deceived DHHS about the residence of her children, we affirm.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
On the briefs:
Jamesa J. Drake, Esq., Drake Law, LLC, Auburn, for appellant
Crystal Hodsdon
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Darcy Mitchell, Asst.
Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellee State of Maine
7
At oral argument:
Jamesa J. Drake, Esq., for appellant Crystal Hodsdon
Darcy Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State of Maine
Kennebec County Superior Court docket number CR-2013-1080
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY