 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. JONES5/7/1998
Thomas K. Jones appeals the denial of a post-trial motion to dismiss after entry of conviction for communications fraud, a second degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1801 (Supp. 1997). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 1996, Jones applied for federal disability retirement benefits based on a work-related injury he suffered while an employee of the United States Postal Service. He asserted in the application that the injury was so severe that he could no longer do his job. The State charged him with communications fraud, contending that the application contained intentional misrepresentations about the source of the injury and the extent of his disability. At trial, the State produced videotapes of Jones doing strenuous physical activities while away from work, such as playing basketball, baseball, and softball, despite his claim of disability. After viewing the tapes, several State and defense experts testified that Jones was not so disabled that he was entitled to disability retirement. The jury convicted Jones.
After the jury verdict was entered, Jones filed a motion to dismiss maintaining that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In the motion, he argued that Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 8401-79 (West 1996 & Supp. 1998), enacted
pursuant to the constitutional provision, preempt the State from prosecuting him for fraud related to his application. The district court denied the motion. Jones appeals the denial of this motion.
ISSUE
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court incorrectly concluded that FERS did not preempt the prosecution of Jones under state law for communications fraud.
ANALYSIS
Congress established FERS to provide a retirement scheme for federal employees. The system provides basic annuities, see 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 8410-25 (West 1996 & Supp. 1998), a thrift savings plan, see id. §§ 8431-40d, survivor annuities, see id. §§ 8441-45, and disability benefits, see id. §§ 8451-56. The statute creates administrative and management guidelines to implement and run the system. See id. §§ 8461-79.
Jones argues that FERS preempts the state communications fraud statute as it relates to any communications in his application for disability retirement. Jones never contends, however, that FERS expressly preempts state legislation affecting the implementation of FERS. Instead, he argues that the statutory structure and purpose implicitly evidence Congress's intention to preempt state action in this field. Specifically, he argues that the State "has impermissibly interfered with the operation of [FERS]" by prosecuting him for fraud, even though "Congress deliberate attempt to weigh balancing interests in the relationships between federal employees and employing agencies" when it enacted the law.
We do not "lightly infer preemption." International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 491, 107 S.Ct. 805, 811, 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987); accord State v. Sterkel, 933 P.2d 409, 412 (Utah Ct.App. 1997); see also Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947) (stating Court assumed "historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded" by federal legislation). In fact, it is inappropriate for us to conclude that federal legislation has preempted state law "unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Rice, 331 U.S. at 230, 67 S.Ct. at 1152. This "clear and manifest purpose" to preempt state law can be shown either by express statutory language or by implication fro
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|