Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of embezzlement under MCL 750.174a & commingling of funds by a caregiver under MCL 750.145p(1); Whether defendant was legally required to keep client funds in a separate trust account; Fiduciary status of guardians & conservators; Duty to segregate assets held in the fiduciary capacity (MCL 700.1212(1)); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to call witnesses; Failure to request jury instructions on lesser included offenses; Admission of business records under MRE 803(6); People v Safiedine

Holding that defendant-guardian/conservator had a legal duty to keep client funds in separate accounts, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support her convictions of commingling of funds by a caregiver and embezzlement. It also rejected her ineffective assistance of counsel claims and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the admission of business records under MRE 803(6). She was convicted of embezzlement under MCL 750.174a and commingling of funds by a caregiver under MCL 750.145p(1) related to 10 clients (the wards). She “served as a legal guardian, and in some cases also conservator, for” them. As to the commingling conviction, the issue was whether MCL 700.1212(1)’s “requirement that a fiduciary ‘segregate[e] . . . assets held in the fiduciary capacity’ . . . constitutes a ‘law or administrative rule’ requiring funds to be ‘held in a separate trust account’ under MCL 750.145p(1)(a).” The court held “that MCL 700.1212(1) does require guardians to avoid commingling funds, and that the failure to do so can result in criminal penalties under MCL 750.145p(1)(a).” Defendant’s mixing of “the wards’ funds in her own personal account” constituted commingling under the latter statute. As to the embezzlement convictions, “defense counsel stipulated that the ‘vulnerable adult’ element” was met. The court determined that the evidence and testimony presented “at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that defendant embezzled funds from the wards within the applicable statutory ranges for Counts” 1-10. And the prosecution established that she “knowingly and deliberately embezzled funds from the wards. The proofs revealed that defendant used a scheme to unjustly enrich herself and that she inappropriately pocketed the wards’ nominal accounts for her own benefit. The evidence included [her] mismanagement of each of her wards’ funds; [her] inconsistent statements” about the amounts of money taken from them and how she purportedly spent it; her “refusal or failure to produce records and receipts that could have supported her version of events; and [her] unauthorized use of [a ward’s] car for personal business.” Affirmed.