Peete v. State

Citations: 59 Ark. App. 186; 955 S.W.2d 708; 1997 Ark. App. LEXIS 859Docket: CA CR 96-1341

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; November 19, 1997; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lonezo and Cynthia Peete were convicted of workers’ compensation fraud under Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-106(a)(1), a Class D felony, and sentenced to four years and eight months in prison. On appeal, they challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting their convictions and argued that their right to a speedy trial was violated. The court found substantial evidence supporting the verdicts and determined there was no infringement on their speedy trial rights, thus affirming the convictions.

Lonezo Peete was injured on November 19, 1993, while working at Heckett Multiservice when a bucket of hot metal exploded, causing significant burns. He received initial emergency treatment and was later released to work without restrictions on February 14, 1994. However, Peete did not return to work and was terminated on February 22, 1994. Following his termination, he pursued claims for a change of physician and continued disability benefits, alleging emotional distress from the injury. His claims prompted an investigation by the Workers’ Compensation Fraud Investigation Unit.

The Peetes were arrested on May 26, 1994, but charges were dismissed without prejudice in June 1995. Charges were reinstated on July 12, 1995, and the trial began in April 1996. The court emphasized that a motion for a directed verdict challenges evidence sufficiency and that substantial evidence must be strong enough to compel a conclusion beyond speculation. Testimony from Peete's supervisor raised suspicions about the legitimacy of Peete's claims, noting discrepancies in his reported condition and excessive medical supply orders.

Mr. Schmalzreid raised concerns to his superiors, leading to the hiring of a private investigator. On January 25, 1994, Schmalzreid assisted in surveilling the Peetes, recording their activities. He later informed Mr. Peete via letter on February 14, 1994, that he was cleared by Dr. Williams to return to work without restrictions, with a scheduled return date of February 19. When Peete did not report, company policy deemed him to have voluntarily terminated his employment after three days without response. Schmalzreid issued a notice of termination on February 22.

Schmalzreid also had discussions with Cynthia Peete, who expressed concerns about her husband's ability to return to work due to pain and alleged disrespect from his physicians. Investigator Tom Meins provided testimony regarding the videotape, which showed Mr. Peete using crutches to exit his home, being assisted into a car by his wife, and later using a wheelchair at Dr. Williams's office. The tape concluded with Mr. Peete exiting the car unassisted and running into the house.

Dr. John Williams, Mr. Peete’s treating physician, testified that he first treated Peete after an accident that resulted in first- and second-degree burns, particularly a significant burn on his inner thigh. While the burns healed in about a month, Peete reported chronic back pain and claimed an inability to bear weight on his legs, despite normal physical examinations and imaging results. Dr. Williams found no physical explanation for Peete’s complaints and referred him to a neurologist, who also found no objective issues. He prescribed physical therapy and noted Ms. Peete’s involvement in her husband’s care, questioning her ability to assist given her smaller stature compared to the effort needed by two nurses during office visits. During the January 25 visit, Peete complained of pain in his back, neck, and wrist.

Peete reported experiencing severe pain and was unable to transfer from his wheelchair to the examination table, which he attributed to his condition. Dr. Williams, after reviewing a videotape of Peete, testified that Peete's actions contradicted his claimed abilities and suggested that he was malingering. In defense, Dr. Russell Dixon, a clinical psychologist, evaluated Peete multiple times and noted that Peete remained in a wheelchair due to back pain. Although Dixon acknowledged potential post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) due to Peete's traumatic experience, he could not definitively diagnose it and observed that Peete became increasingly uncommunicative over time. Dixon identified signs consistent with malingering, including referral by an attorney, significant discrepancies between Peete's claims and medical findings, and a lack of cooperation during assessments. He found it difficult to disagree with the conclusion that Peete was malingering. Dr. Tom Heisler, a forensic psychologist called by the prosecution, evaluated Peete in 1996 and concluded that Peete was competent to stand trial and was also malingering, driven by external incentives such as avoiding work or seeking financial compensation.

The opinion in question relied on four factors from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, focusing specifically on the second and third elements. Medical reports indicated no organic cause for Peete’s inability to walk, and his lack of cooperation during evaluations was noted. Heisler observed inconsistencies between Peete’s responses during his evaluation and his more articulate deposition six months post-accident, where Peete provided detailed answers. During the evaluation, Peete often gave one or two-word responses or did not answer numerous questions, requiring his wife to provide information about the accident. Additionally, Peete did not respond to basic questions in the Welchler IQ test. Heisler found it surprising to later see Peete walking in a videotape, given that Peete had been in a wheelchair during their interview and struggled to use crutches. The jury reviewed Peete's May 1994 deposition, where he described ongoing pain and difficulties since the accident, despite being released to work. Peete claimed severe pain and psychological distress, including nightmares and intense sensations. He argued that there was no evidence of false representations after January 25, 1994, the date of the videotape, or of receiving benefits post-date. However, substantial evidence indicated he was feigning his condition to obtain additional workers' compensation benefits, as he continued to present himself as unable to walk and made false claims during his evaluations and deposition. The statute only requires that false statements be made to seek benefits, regardless of whether the accused achieved that goal. There was also evidence that Ms. Peete actively participated in this scheme, countering her argument of lack of knowledge of false representations.

The individual assisted her husband, who was in a wheelchair, by describing his physical limitations and answering questions on his behalf when he was unresponsive. She witnessed her husband’s actions as depicted in a videotape. According to Arkansas law, an accomplice is someone who aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid in committing an offense or fails to prevent it when legally required. Substantial evidence supported her conviction. The appellants argued they were denied a speedy trial, claiming that their trial, held on April 10, 1996, exceeded the one-year limit set by Rule 28.1(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, as they were arrested on May 25, 1994. They contended that only specific periods should be excluded from this calculation. However, the trial court had dismissed the charges on June 25, 1995, at the defense's request due to a defective referral, which reset the timeline for the trial. Rule 28.2 states that the trial period resumes from the date the charges are reinstated or the defendant is re-arrested. Since the charges were reinstated on July 12, 1995, the trial did not violate the speedy-trial requirement. The decision was affirmed by the court.