ILNews

COA reverses order of restitution to county

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A nurse practicing in Indiana without a license had her convictions of forgery and practicing nursing without a license upheld April 22, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order that she pay restitution to the county where she worked.

In Rebecca D. Lohmiller v. State of Indiana, No. 08A02-0710-CR-873, Lohmiller appealed her convictions and sentence for six counts of forgery and 21 counts of practicing nursing without a license. The court sentenced her to four years imprisonment with two years served on home detention and two years suspended to probation. She also was ordered to pay Carroll County $25,000 in restitution as a condition of probation.

Lohmiller moved to Indiana from Georgia with her husband in 1985. She was licensed to practice as a nurse in Georgia, but when she moved, she did not acquire an Indiana nursing license. Lohmiller claimed she was in the federal Witness Protection Program for a short stint before moving to Indiana and that she didn't apply for an Indiana license because she didn't want to draw attention to the fact that she had relocated. She said she dropped out of the program because it wouldn't provide protection to her future husband. Lohmiller began working in 1999 at the Carroll County Health Department and her job required her to have a valid Indiana nursing license. For four years, Lohmiller made excuses as to why she couldn't produce the document. During those years, Lohmiller signed her name as "Rebecca Lohmiller, RN, MSN" at least 27 times on documents such as tobacco settlement subcontracts and immunization records.

In August 2005, the state charged Lohmiller with forgery and practicing nursing without a license. Before she testified at trial, she made an offer to prove that she was in the Witness Protection Program.

The trial court ruled that Lohmiller could testify that she had been in the Witness Protection Program and, out of fear, had chosen not to get an Indiana nursing license, but she could not give the specific details of why she was in the program because they were irrelevant to her current case.

After retiring to deliberate, the jury sent two questions - one asking for a dictionary, and the other asking for a definition of "material fact" as it was used in two of the jury instructions. The trial court denied the jury's requests and the jury found Lohmiller guilty.

The trial court later denied her motion to vacate her convictions because of double jeopardy violations and sentenced her.

Lohmiller raised several issues on appeal including that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain her forgery convictions, the trial court erred by denying the jury's request for a dictionary and by not answering its questions regarding jury instructions, and that the trial court committed fundamental error by ordering her to pay restitution to the county.

The appellate court unanimously upheld Lohmiller's convictions. Chief Judge John Baker also wrote the trial court didn't err when it allowed Lohmiller to only testify that she had been in the Witness Protection Program without giving details as to why she entered the program. Because the excluded part of her proffered testimony was irrelevant, the trial court didn't violate her right to testify.

In regards to Lohmiller's argument that the jury instructions contained a legal gap the court should have addressed in response to the jury's request for a definition of "material fact," the evidence she submitted to support this argument only included the text of jury instructions 19 and 20 - the two in question - and no other instructions.

Chief Judge Baker wrote that this stalled the court's effort to determine whether a legal gap existed, so the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to not further instruct the jury regarding the definition. The trial court also didn't err in denying the jury a dictionary because she cannot show she was prejudiced by the court's decision.

Finally, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court order that Lohmiller pay restitution to Carroll County as a condition of her probation. Even though Lohmiller didn't object to the restitution order at the sentencing hearing, the trial court's order constitutes fundamental error. The state did not assert the county was a victim during the sentencing hearing nor did it offer any evidence to prove Lohmiller should be required to pay the $25,000 as a condition of her probation, or any evidence regarding the county's actual damages.

The appellate court reversed the trial court order of restitution to Carroll County and remanded with instructions that the trial court hold a hearing to determine the actual damages, if any, the county suffered as a result of Lohmiller's crimes.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT