P. v. Ingalsbe
Appellant, the owner of an auto body repair shop, was convicted of two counts of insurance fraud based on his preparation and submission of a repair estimate solicited by an undercover investigator as part of a sting operation. Appellant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to justify the jurys verdict; (2) he cannot be convicted of insurance fraud based on the submission of a claim against a fictitious policy; (3) the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial based on the introduction of improper testimony that there had been prior complaints against appellants shop; and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to prevent or adequately respond to the introduction of that improper testimony. Court reject all of these contentions, and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Ingalsbe