MOUNT VERNON – June Hamilton Dean engaged in misconduct as consultant for East St. Louis Township by committing forgery, Fifth District appellate judges ruled on July 5.
Justices Barry Vaughan, Mark Boie, and Randy Moore affirmed Circuit Judge John O’Gara, who entered judgment on a jury verdict in 2019.
“Because it is the function of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine all factual matters, we defer to its judgment and find the evidence was sufficient to show defendant knew her actions were forbidden by law,” Vaughan wrote.
O’Gara sentenced Dean to 30 months on probation, which she completed last year.
Dean and the township executed a contract for her to act as financial consultant in 2016, while her brother Oliver Hamilton held the position of township supervisor.
Grand jurors indicted her later that year on charges of forgery and public contractor misconduct.
She allegedly sent a letter to two landlords stating the township would employ RaeShaunta Lacy, one stating she would receive $34,000 a year and the other stating $36,000.
Lacy was a sister of Dean’s boyfriend.
At trial, Dean’s counsel Lloyd M. Cueto of Belleville said in opening argument that Dean had authority to hire Lacy.
He said there was no representation that the township currently employed Lacy full time.
Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Charles Willenborg testified that Lacy participated in the township’s Earn Fare program, which provided work skills and cash to welfare recipients.
He said Earn Fare limited workers to $300 a month.
Assistant State’s Attorney Daniel Lewis called the landlords and other witnesses, and then rested.
Cueto presented no evidence for Dean.
In closing argument, Cueto told jurors the state could have called Lacy as a witness.
He asked why not and said, “It would have destroyed their case because there is no case here.”
Lewis told jurors, “He wants to distract you. He doesn’t want you to look at that letter.”
“He doesn’t want you to compare it to all of the testimony that you have heard over the past couple of days that shows that nothing in that letter is true,” he said.
Jurors found Dean guilty on both charges.
She moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a second trial.
O’Gara denied the motion.
The sentencing range ran from 30 months on probation to five years in prison, and O’Gara chose the lightest sentence.
Cueto argued on appeal that the state failed to prove intent because there was no direct evidence supporting it, and Dean gained no personal benefit, but Fifth District judges disagreed.
Vaughan wrote, “Direct evidence of an intent to defraud is rare.”
“As such, intent to defraud is often proven by circumstantial evidence,” he added.
“The fact that defendant gained no personal benefit does not change our judgment,” he continued.
“While defendant remains barred from state related employment as a result of her convictions, she does not assert error or request relief in this respect,” Vaughan concluded.