Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Andrea Barendt’s conviction for misapplication of entrusted property under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-07. The court held that sufficient evidence supported findings that she knowingly used her grandmother’s funds without authorization and exposed them to risk of loss or detriment. The court also held that her challenge to the weight and credibility of the evidence was not preserved because she did not move for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported findings that Andrea Barendt knowingly used entrusted property in an unauthorized manner and knew her conduct involved a risk of loss or detriment to the property owner.
- Whether the conviction should be overturned because it was against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether the power of attorney's gift provision authorized Andrea Barendt's withdrawals and expenditures.
Holdings
- Sufficient evidence supported the conviction for misapplication of entrusted property because a rational factfinder could infer that Andrea Barendt knew her withdrawals and expenditures were unauthorized and knew they involved a risk of loss or detriment to Ada Barendt's property.
- The Court would not review Barendt's challenge that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence because she did not move for a new trial or otherwise preserve the issue for appellate review.
- The power of attorney did not authorize Andrea Barendt to use Ada Barendt's property for Andrea's personal benefit; its express authorization for gifts and property transactions was limited by the requirement that the attorney-in-fact act for Ada's benefit.
Key quotations
“This Court will reverse a criminal conviction only if, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable evidentiary inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (740 N.W.2d at 89)
“This Court does not sit as a "thirteenth juror" to make independent determinations of credibility of witnesses or other evidentiary weight.” (740 N.W.2d at 93)
“At the end of the trial, Andrea Barendt did not make a motion for new trial. Thus, this Court has no ability to review any motions or issues challenging the weight and credibility of the evidence and the issue has not been properly preserved for appeal.” (740 N.W.2d at 93)
Factual background
Ada Barendt granted her granddaughter Andrea a durable power of attorney authorizing her to act in Ada's name and for Ada's benefit. While serving as attorney-in-fact, Andrea withdrew and spent Ada's funds on personal debts, gambling, illegal drugs, a pickup truck, and a personal eBay business, including transferring $50,000 to an account in Andrea's name. Ada's nursing-home and prescription bills went unpaid, and a later guardianship and conservatorship accounting uncovered transactions believed not to benefit Ada.
Procedural history
Barendt was charged under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-07 and convicted following a November 2006 bench trial. She appealed, arguing the State failed to prove two knowledge-related elements beyond a reasonable doubt and that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding the evidence was sufficient and the weight-of-the-evidence challenge was not preserved because Barendt did not move for a new trial.