COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY v. THOMAS THOMPSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: April 23, 1999; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1998-CA-001621-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE SHEILA ISAAC, JUDGE
INDICTMENT NO. 98-CR-00467
v.
THOMAS THOMPSON
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, DYCHE, AND KNOX, JUDGES.
DYCHE, JUDGE.
The Commonwealth appeals pursuant to Kentucky
Revised Statute (KRS) 22A.020(4) from an order of the Fayette
Circuit Court that granted Thomas Thompson’s (Thompson) motion to
dismiss or transfer venue under Kentucky Rules of Criminal
Procedure (RCr) 8.26.
We affirm.
On January 18, 1997, Thompson was struck by broken
glass when an air hose disconnected and broke the rear window of
the semi-tractor he was operating.
On January 31, 1997, a
“Workers’ Compensation-First Report of Injury or Illness” form
was completed in Transcraft Corporation’s personnel office and
sent to Kentucky Employer’s Mutual Insurance Company (KEMI) in
Lexington, Kentucky.
KEMI paid Thompson temporary disability
benefits from May 9, 1997, through October 20, 1997.
In April 1998, a Fayette County Grand Jury returned an
indictment charging Thompson with Insurance Fraud (KRS 304.47020).
On June 24, 1998, the Fayette Circuit Court granted
Thompson’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue and
ordered venue transferred to Montgomery Circuit Court.
This
appeal followed.
Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that
in all criminal prosecutions the accused "shall have a speedy
public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage. . . ."
The
vicinage is "the area surrounding a particular place,
specifically the place where the cause of action is alleged to
have arisen or where a crime is alleged to have been committed."
Commonwealth v. Cheeks, Ky., 698 S.W.2d 832, 835 (1985).
The
proper venue for the prosecution of a case is in the county in
which the alleged offense has been committed.
Id. at 834; and
KRS 452.510.
The Commonwealth argues that Thompson committed a
fraudulent insurance act in Fayette County by making
misrepresentations in a claim that was filed in KEMI’s Lexington
office.
In addition, the Commonwealth contends that Fayette
County is a proper venue because the disability checks were
issued and mailed from KEMI’s Lexington office.
The Commonwealth incorrectly relies on Hodges v.
Commonwealth, Ky. App., 614 S.W.2d 702 (1981), and Commonwealth
v. Evans, Ky. App., 645 S.W.2d 350 (1982), for the proposition
-2-
that venue is proper in Fayette County.
In Hodges, the defendant
filed false expense claims and was charged with theft by
deception (KRS 514.040).
In Evans, the defendants were charged
with theft by deception (KRS 514.040)(repealed 1998), scheming to
obtain medical assistance program benefits by means of false or
fraudulent representations (KRS 194.505), and presentation of
fraudulent claims for benefits (KRS 205.850)(repealed 1994).
The
court, in both cases, found that venue was proper in either the
county where the claims were submitted or in the county wherein
each defendant had prepared the false claims.
The Commonwealth fails to recognize that Hodges and
Evans are not controlling on the issue of venue for insurance
fraud (KRS 304.47-020).
In Hodges and Evans, the defendants were
charged with theft by deception (KRS 514.040), a crime which
required the Commonwealth to prove that the defendants actually
received property or services by deception.
Based on this
element, the Commonwealth could prosecute the defendants in the
county where the property or services were issued.
Here,
Thompson has been charged with the crime of insurance fraud (KRS
304.47-020).
As a result, the Commonwealth does not have to
prove that Thompson acquired any property or services.
The
benefit checks issued from Fayette County are not relevant to KRS
304.47-020 and do not form a proper basis for venue.
Determining the proper venue for the prosecution of
Thompson requires the resolution of the question:
where was the
crime of insurance fraud (KRS 304.47-020) committed?
-3-
The
insurance fraud statute, KRS 304.47-020(1)(a), provides:
[A] person or entity commits a "fraudulent
insurance act" if he: Knowingly and with the
intent to defraud or deceive presents, causes
to be presented, or prepares with the
knowledge or belief that it will be presented
to an insurer, Board of Claims, Special Fund
or any agent thereof, any written or oral
statement as part of, or in support of, a
claim for payment or other benefit pursuant
to an insurance policy. . ., knowing that the
statement contains any false, incomplete, or
misleading information concerning any fact or
thing material to a claim.
The phrase, "presents, causes to be presented, or prepares with
the knowledge or belief that it will be presented to an insurer"
is the key to resolving the query.
At what point did Thompson
present the "Workers’ Compensation-First Report of Injury or
Illness" form, cause the form to be presented, or prepare the
form with the knowledge or belief that it would be presented to
KEMI?
The facts indicate that Thompson filled out the form in
Transcraft Corporation’s personnel office in Montgomery County.
Any false, incomplete, or misleading information in the form
stems from Thompson preparing it in Montgomery County.
When
these facts are applied to KRS 304.47-020 it is clear that
Thompson was in Montgomery County when he caused the form to be
presented and/or prepared the form with the knowledge and belief
that it would be presented to KEMI.
The mere fact that the form
was then sent to KEMI’s Lexington office is not sufficient to
subject Thompson to prosecution in Fayette County.
For the reasons stated above, the order of the Fayette
-4-
Circuit Court transferring venue to Montgomery Circuit Court is
hereby affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
A. B. Chandler, III
Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
Jerry L. Wright
Lexington, Kentucky
Special Assistant Attorney
General
Erwin Roberts
Lexington, Kentucky
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.