Summary
The Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed Marcia L. Neiss-Parsons's convictions for two counts of passing bad checks under R.C. 2913.11(B). The court held that the evidence supported the jury's finding of purpose to defraud, rejected challenges to the credibility of a prosecution witness, upheld admission of prior convictions for impeachment, and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Neiss-Parsons acted with purpose to defraud under R.C. 2913.11(B).
- Whether the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State's evidence allegedly showed that the payee knew the checks could not immediately be cashed and because Mazzurco allegedly gave perjured testimony.
- Whether the trial court properly admitted Neiss-Parsons's prior convictions, which were more than ten years old, for impeachment under Evid.R. 609(B) and Evid.R. 403.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions that did not instruct the jury to disregard allegedly perjured testimony.
Holdings
- A payee's knowledge that funds are not immediately available does not permanently negate the issuer's purpose to defraud. The State proved the requisite intent where the defendant later represented that the check could be deposited, despite the account being closed and lacking sufficient funds.
- The convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Neiss-Parsons's prior convictions for impeachment because it made particularized findings that their probative value substantially outweighed their prejudicial effect and the State provided the required notice.
- Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the jury instructions because Neiss-Parsons did not identify a proper omitted instruction, did not establish that Mazzurco committed perjury, and failed to show deficient performance or prejudice.
Key quotations
“the requisite purpose to defraud is not forever negated by the recipient’s knowledge that the funds are not immediately available.” (¶ 18)
“Upon concluding that the trial court’s decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appeals court need not do a separate analysis as to sufficiency, because a conclusion that a verdict is not against the manifest weight necessarily means it is supported by sufficient evidence.” (¶ 8)
Factual background
Neiss-Parsons issued a $300 check to Mazzurco to hold a rental property and later issued a $2,400 check for rent and deposits. Both checks were returned for insufficient funds and had been drawn on an account closed in 2007. Although Neiss-Parsons initially asked Mazzurco to wait before depositing the $2,400 check, she later authorized him to deposit it. Mazzurco testified that he did not know the checks were drawn on a closed account and would not have accepted them had he known.
Procedural history
The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas convicted Neiss-Parsons of two violations of R.C. 2913.11(B). The Eleventh District affirmed the judgment after rejecting all four assignments of error.