Brown v. State

The defendant falsified three Federal Highway Administration FHA purchase orders purportedly for supplies and services, which, in fact, authorized payment of FHA funds for unauthorized college courses.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury convicted Jacqueline Hill Brown of a single count of theft by taking OCGA § 16-8-2. Brown appeals, contending that the trial court erred in i denying her motion for directed verdict of acquittal; ii overruling her oral demurrer based on a fatal variance; iii instructing the jury as to the offense of theft by taking and refusing to give her requested charge on currency; and iv denying her motion to disqualify the trial judge. Concluding that there was no fatal variance and that the State’s evidence was sufficient to sustain Brown’s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, a defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict.” Citation omitted. Osborne v. State , 291 Ga. App. 711 1 662 SE2d 792 2008.

Viewed in that light, the evidence shows that in February 2000, Brown was employed with the Federal Highway Administration “FHA” as an information analyst and her position relied heavily on the use of statistics. Gary Corino was the resource manager for the Atlanta division of the FHA and supervised Brown and Vanessa Smith, a financial and administration team leader. In June 2004, Brown applied for a company academic study program “ASP” to attend job-related college courses and asked for a letter of recommendation from Corino, which he provided. Although Corino recommended Brown for a statistics course, he later learned that Brown had applied for courses in biostatistics, which were unrelated to the business of the FHA. In early 2005, Corino learned that Brown had used approximately $7,000 in government funds from Brown’s operating budget to pay for course work in linear algebra, statistics, and data management. Due to a misunderstanding about the use of government funds from Brown’s operating budget for ASP, Brown was allowed to complete the courses and was not required to reimburse the FHA for such course work.

Brown v. State

The defendant falsified three Federal Highway Administration FHA purchase orders purportedly for supplies and services, which, in fact, authorized payment of FHA funds for unauthorized college courses.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report