AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In 2009, Defendant Joel Hixon met Dain Schult and learned about Schult's company, American Radio Empire, Inc. (ARE), which aimed to purchase local radio stations for online broadcasting. Schult sought investors, offering repayment or stock in ARE. Hixon, initially investing $1,500 with his wife, encouraged others to invest, receiving compensation for each investment he facilitated. Investors were misled about the use of their funds and Hixon's compensation from their investments. The State's financial analysis suggested ARE operated like a Ponzi scheme, with minimal investment in the business and most funds used for personal expenses by Schult and payments to Hixon (paras 2-9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by denying a request for jury instructions on a higher level of intent for securities-related offenses, claimed the jury instructions allowed for conviction on insufficient grounds for securities fraud, and contended there was insufficient evidence to support convictions for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's request for jury instructions requiring a higher level of intent for securities offenses.
• Whether it was fundamental error to allow the jury to convict Defendant on legally insufficient grounds for securities fraud.
• Whether it was fundamental error to fail to instruct the jury on the legal definitions of "effect" and "agent" for the sale of a security by an unlicensed agent.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for fraud (over $20,000), conspiracy to commit fraud (over $20,000), securities fraud, sale of a security by an unlicensed agent, and offer or sale of an unregistered security (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Medina, held that the securities criminal penalty statute only requires a general intent instruction, thus the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's instructions for a higher level of intent. The Court also found no fundamental error in the jury instructions for securities fraud and sale of a security by an unlicensed agent. It was determined that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. The Court relied on statutory interpretation and precedent to conclude that the offenses in question are general intent crimes, and the jury instructions given were appropriate and did not mislead the jury. The Court also reviewed the evidence presented at trial and found it sufficient to support the verdicts (paras 12-59).