Sinyard v. State

The trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for a mistrial when a prospective juror commented during voir dire that the defendant had cheated her friend since the comment tainted the entire jury pool.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Benny Ray Sinyard was convicted of theft by conversion after he agreed to invest $45,000 for Ms. Opal Nelson “Nelson” but never returned or accounted for the funds. On appeal, Sinyard claims that the State failed to prove an element of the crime, that the jury pool was tainted by a prospective juror’s statement, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The victim testified that in February 1997, Sinyard told her that he worked for American Income Life Insurance Company and that it had a brokerage section called “American Income Services.” He promised that if she gave him $10,000 to invest for one year, she would get $30,000, including her investment, and that she “may get even more than that.” He stated that the return was “one-hundred percent” guaranteed and that she could get her money back at any time. She did not see any documentation of the investment and she conceded at trial that she did not know the nature of the investment, but she agreed and gave him $10,000 cash. Sinyard signed a receipt for the investments, hand-written by Nelson, promising to return the entire principal at any time Nelson requested. He had refused to sign a receipt that mentioned the $20,000 return.

Three weeks later Sinyard again approached Nelson and told her that if she invested another $10,000, she would receive interest in the amount of $1,000 per month. She accepted and made three payments totaling $10,000. On one of the checks, Sinyard told Nelson to write that it was payment for a fence, and she wrote “fence” in the memo area. Two of the checks, which Nelson made out to Sinyard, are signed by Sinyard on the back below an endorsement stating, “for deposit only.” Sinyard signed another receipt, also hand-written by the victim, promising to return the entire principal at any time Nelson requested.

Sinyard v. State

The trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for a mistrial when a prospective juror commented during voir dire that the defendant had cheated her friend since the comment tainted the entire jury pool.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report