This case shows, once again, the importance of getting agreements with contractors in writing- especially if there is some question as to their financial well-being or trustworthiness. Here, a financially-stressed contractor failed to pay bills for materials and ended up being charged with theft as a habitual offender.
In this case, homeowners reached an oral agreement with a contractor for the contractor to replace the shingles on a rental home that the homeowners owned. However, before the job began, a lumberyard employee informed the homeowners that the contractor owed the lumberyard a substantial sum for supplies. So, the homeowners requested that the contractor sign a written agreement indicating that payment for the repairs would include the cost of materials. The contractor picked up supplies from another lumberyard and completed the project. The homeowners paid the contractor in full, but the contractor failed to pay the lumberyard. The homeowners paid the lumberyard for the supplies and alerted the authorities of the contractor’s scheme.
During the investigation, the authorities found evidence of a possible “common scheme” and intent and motive to commit a theft from several lumberyards and homeowners. The authorities charged the contractor with theft by deception as a habitual offender, based upon two prior felonies in other states. The trial court judge found the contractor to be guilty of theft in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code §714.1(3) and 714.2(2). The contractor’s sentence was enhanced to fifteen years because the court found that he was, indeed, a habitual offender.
The contractor appealed his sentence arguing that the court improperly admitted evidence of his “prior bad acts,” in violation of the Iowa Rules of Evidence. This type of evidence is generally not admitted during trial because of possible prejudice to the defendant. However, if the evidence is relevant to prove motive, opportunity and intent, it may be admitted if the value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.
On appeal, the court ruled that the two prior felony convictions had value in showing a “similar pattern of conduct” and the contractor’s criminal intent. The contractor further argued that there was not enough evidence to uphold his conviction for theft by deception, because it could not be conclusively proven that he did not intend to pay the lumberyard. However, the appellate court agreed that the trial court was a “rational fact finder” and there was a good amount of evidence to prove that the contractor had committed a theft beyond a reasonable doubt. The contractor admitted under oath that he was in “dire financial straights” and that he had engaged in felonious activities in the past. Thus, the appellate court also held that the contractor was a habitual offender, because there was plenty of evidence to establish a criminal record in other states.State v. Delong, No. 9-1042/09-0215, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 232 (Iowa Ct. App., Mar. 24, 2010).