{
  "id": 6815305,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HELEN B RENKOSIAK, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Renkosiak",
  "decision_date": "2013-04-02",
  "docket_number": "No. COA12-975",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "226 N.C. App. 377"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "657 S.E.2d 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12640474
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "403"
        },
        {
          "page": "403"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/657/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "643 S.E.2d 620",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638133
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "622"
        },
        {
          "page": "622"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/643/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "693 S.E.2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "148"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N.C. App. 718",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4176301
      ],
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "724"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/203/0718-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N.C. App. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4156789
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "140-41"
        },
        {
          "page": "140-41"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/189/0138-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "655 S.E.2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "362 N.C. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4149229
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/362/0162-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. App. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8201751
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "103"
        },
        {
          "page": "103"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/183/0100-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 8308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.722,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.18306318244808867
    },
    "sha256": "a76c2e3f5b10510c255432b3db9e591e3d7c3dbee83d0b5f00e1570067bd7c5d",
    "simhash": "1:2a2b1620670680eb",
    "word_count": 1329
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:47.059681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges STEPHENS and DILLON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HELEN B RENKOSIAK, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nDefendant appeals her conviction for embezzlement, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motions in limine and to dismiss. For the following reasons, we find no error.\nI. Background\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Mr. Carlos Gomez was the founder of Coastal Engineering and Surveying. (\u201cCoastal\u201d). In 2001, Mr. Gomez hired defendant as a \u201cbookkeeper controller\u201d for Coastal. Defendant\u2019s duties included making day-to-day financial decisions for Coastal such as paying Coastal\u2019s invoices. In this capacity, defendant had full authority to sign checks drawn upon Coastal\u2019s bank account. In 2003, Mr. Gomez directed defendant to close Coastal\u2019s BP charge cards; she failed to do so and these cards remained open and charges continued to be incurred on them. By 2007, Mr. Gomez had noticed some financial irregularities. Among other issues, Mr. Gomez discovered that Coastal had been paying for the BP charge cards that he had previously ordered defendant to close and for AFLAC insurance for defendant. When Mr. Gomez confronted defendant with the irregularities, she stated that \u201cshe meant to pay every bit of it, and it\u2019s just that they are so tight at her house, and her husband doesn\u2019t make enough money, and she has to work so many jobs.\u201d Defendant offered to pay Mr. Gomez $15,000.00. The evidence showed that defendant misappropriated a total sum of $116,885.77. A jury found defendant guilty of embezzling more than $100,000.00. Defendant was sentenced to 73 months to 97 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nII. Motion in Limine\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to exclude evidence related to BP charge cards and AFLAC insurance. \u201cWhen reviewing a trial court\u2019s ruling on a motion in limine, this Court\u2019s standard of review is abuse of discretion.\u201d State v. Wilson, 183 N.C. App. 100, 103, 643 S.E.2d 620, 622 (2007), modified and aff\u2019d, 362 N.C. 162, 655 S.E.2d 359 (2008).\nA. BP Charge Cards\nDefendant contends that because the evidence does not show that defendant was personally physically entrusted with the BP charge cards and that she personally incurred the charges by physically using the charge cards, the State failed to prove embezzlement.\nThe essential elements of embezzlement are:\n(1) the defendant, older than 16, acted as an agent or fiduciary for his principal, (2) he received money or valuable property of his principal in the course of his employment and through his fiduciary relationship, and (3) he fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapplied or converted to his own use the money of his principal which he had received in a fiduciary capacity.\nState v. Newell, 189 N.C. App. 138, 140-41, 657 S.E.2d 400, 403 (2008).\nDefendant\u2019s argument misapprehends the charges against her: she was not charged with wrongfully possessing the BP charge cards themselves; she was charged with misapplication of her employer\u2019s funds by paying bills she knew to be not for Coastal\u2019s benefit and specifically not authorized by her employer. Defendant does not dispute that the State\u2019s evidence shows that defendant paid BP bills which she knew were not authorized by Coastal or for Coastal\u2019s benefit with Coastal\u2019s funds. An embezzlement charge against defendant required the State to show fraudulent or knowing misapplication of \u201cmoney ... of [defendant\u2019s] principal . . . which [defendant] had received in a fiduciary capacity;\u201d the State did not also need to show that defendant converted Coastal\u2019s funds to her own use, although the evidence does indicate that she did. Id. Here, the evidence shows that defendant \u201cwillfully misapplied\u201d her employer\u2019s funds by paying BP bills which she knew were incurred without Coastal\u2019s authorization on accounts she was instructed to close. Id.\nDefendant also contends the evidence regarding BP was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading to the jury. For the reasons noted above, the evidence was certainly relevant, and certainly prejudicial to defendant, but not unfairly so. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 401 (2007). We fail to see how this evidence may be confusing or misleading. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in its denial of defendant\u2019s motion in limine. Wilson, 183 N.C. App. at 103, 643 S.E.2d at 622.\nB. AFLAC Insurance\nDefendant also claims that\nthe conduct of the defendant alleged to constitute embezzlement is the failure to deduct from her compensation for AFLAC premiums paid by the company. This is inconsistent with the charge of embezzlement which requires the affirmative act of converting to one\u2019s own use the asset of another while entrusted with it as an agent or employee of that other person or entity.\nContrary to defendant\u2019s argument, the State\u2019s evidence does show defendant\u2019s knowing or willful misapplication of Coastal\u2019s funds as to the AFLAC insurance. The State showed that defendant was in charge of the finances for Coastal; Mr. Gomez did not authorize defendant to pay for her personal AFLAC insurance with Coastal funds without a corresponding deduction from her own paycheck; when defendant was confronted about the financial discrepancies, she stated \u201cshe meant to pay every bit of it, and it\u2019s just that they are so tight at her house, and her husband doesn\u2019t make enough money, and she has to work so many jobs\u201d and offered to pay $15,000.00.\nDefendant also makes essentially the same arguments as to relevance, unfair prejudice, and confusion regarding the AFLAC insurance evidence as she made regarding the BP evidence, although with the AFLAC insurance, the personal benefit to defendant is obvious. Again, the evidence regarding AFLAC insurance was relevant in establishing the elements of embezzlement, see Newell, 189 N.C. App. at 140-41, 657 S.E.2d at 403, so the trial court properly determined that it was not irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial; nor did it confuse and mislead the jury. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 401. This argument is overruled.\nIIL Motion to Dismiss\nDefendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss. \u201cA defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss should be denied if there is substantial evidence of: (1) each essential element of the offense charged, and (2) of defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of the charged offense.\u201d State v. Johnson, 203 N.C. App. 718, 724, 693 S.E.2d 145, 148 (2010). Defendant repeats her arguments that the State failed to show that she was personally entrusted with the BP cards or that she incurred each expense on the cards and that her failure to make a deduction from her own paycheck for her AFLAC insurance is not an \u201caffirmative act\u201d of embezzlement; for the same reasons as stated above, these arguments fail. Defendant also argues that without the evidence regarding the BP charge cards and the AFLAC insurance, the sum misappropriated by defendant is less than $100,000.00; while this may be correct, we have already determined that the evidence regarding the BP charge cards and AFLAC insurance was properly admitted and was evidence of embezzlement. As the State introduced substantial evidence of each of the elements of embezzlement, this argument is overruled.\nIV. Conclusion\nFor the foregoing reasons, we find no error.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges STEPHENS and DILLON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STROUD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Harriet F. Worley, for the State.",
      "Phillip H. Hayes, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HELEN B RENKOSIAK, Defendant\nNo. COA12-975\nFiled 2 April 2013\n1. Evidence \u2014 denial of motion in limine \u2014 willfully misapplied employer\u2019s funds \u2014 charge cards \u2014 insurance\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in an embezzlement case by denying defendant\u2019s motion in limine to exclude evidence related to BP charge cards and AFLAC insurance. The evidence showed that defendant \u201cwillfully misapplied\u201d her employer\u2019s funds.\n2. Embezzlement \u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err in an embezzlement case by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The State introduced substantial evidence of each of the elements of embezzlement.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered on or about 16 July 2011 by Judge Milton F. Fitch, Jr. in Superior Court, Dare County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 January 2013.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Harriet F. Worley, for the State.\nPhillip H. Hayes, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 387,
  "last_page_order": 390
}
