In Special Needs News

A Delaware trial court refuses to overturn a jury’s verdict or award a new trial in the case of a trustee convicted of stealing trust funds, finding that a reasonable jury could have found that nearly $300,000 in unaccounted for cash withdrawals from the trust were purloined by the trustee.  State v. Wilson (Del.Super.Ct., No. 1507000321, July 14, 2016).

Letoni Wilson was the trustee of a special needs trust established for the benefit of her son, Tirese.  During the first 22 months of the trust’s existence, Ms. Wilson withdrew more than $1 million in trust funds and was criminally charged with theft of $100,000 or more from the trust.  At trial, a forensic accountant’s report showed that after legal expenses and fees, Ms. Wilson properly spent $361,563.30 on a home, a car and furniture for her son.  The report also showed that Ms. Wilson improperly used $36,823.51 for herself.  Finally, the report listed $288,606.07 in cash withdrawals that could not be accounted for.  The prosecution accused Ms. Wilson of stealing the cash and the $36,823.51 in improper payments.  Ms. Wilson claimed that the records showing how the cash was used were destroyed in a flood, and her son’s guardian ad litem testified that she believed that the missing money was used for Tirese’s benefit.

After initially returning a confusing note to the judge, the jury eventually convicted Ms. Wilson of theft of $100,000 or more.  Ms. Wilson asked the court to overrule the jury’s verdict, contending that the evidence could not support the conclusion that she stole the $288,606.07, and she also requested a new trial, claiming that the jury’s verdict was an improper compromise verdict.

The Delaware Superior Court denies both motions.  The court finds that “[t]he State’s proof that this $288,606.51 was stolen from the trust is more circumstantial, but not insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that it was stolen.  As noted, Wilson was required to account for ‘every penny’ in her accounting to the Chancery Court.  She failed to account for $288,606.51.  The jury was entitled to conclude that her explanation for that failure — that all of the documents supporting the expenditure of those funds were lost when the basement flooded — was unworthy of belief.”

To read the full text of the court’s decision, go to:

Contact Us

Send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt

Start typing and press Enter to search