Audrey Marie Lehman, 49, of Lancaster was found guilty Jan. 28 of one count felony-three theft by deception in a jury trial before Judge Timothy M. Sullivan of Blair County. Sullivan heard the case because the victims, Kay and Marlin Raffensperger, are former county employees well-known in the courthouse. Marlin served as sheriff and Kay was a county court administrator.
Lehman was on trial for failure to pay loans borrowed from the Raffenspergers for $218,536 from May through December 2005.
The jury, however, concluded that she was responsible for just half of that amount, or $109,268.
District Attorney Chad Chenot's successful argument of Lehman's guilt was centered around the key word "deception.'
Building his case, Chenot called four witnesses to the stand and admitted into evidence items designed to prove Lehman attempted to create a false impression of herself and of her financial assets in order to "dupe' the Raffenspergers into lending her money.
On the other hand, Lehman's attorney, Michael E. Schechterly, set out to convince the jury that although Lehman borrowed the money, there was no deception or criminal intent on his client's part.
According to testimony given by the Raffenspergers and their son, Brian, Lehman entered their lives in December 2002 when she and Brian began dating. Lehman, whom they believed to be a single woman, participated in family functions including dinners and vacations.
During this time, she told them she was financially able to live without working due to investments she made when receiving sizable cash settlements from two prior vehicle crashes.
Kay Raffensperger likened her relationship with Lehman as one of a daughter, while Brian testified that marriage was discussed during their three-year relationship.
Submitted into evidence were several greeting cards that Lehman gave to Kay in which she referred to her as "Mom' and wrote about the special bond they shared.
The cards were part of a series of evidence, said Chenot, that proved Lehman failed to correct the false impression she gave of herself to the Raffenspergers.
After the Raffenspergers sold a vacation/rental property in May 2005, Lehman began borrowing money from them. The Raffenspergers testified that Lehman told them either directly or through Brian that she needed to borrow money because her assets were frozen after she was caught for insider trading.
After Lehman had borrowed money on numerous occasions, the Raffenspergers asked her to sign a piece of paper verifying the amounts she had borrowed. According to Brian, he also signed the paper because it was his understanding that they were a couple planning a life together.
The Raffenspergers also asked for proof of her frozen assets, which was given to them in the form of a letter Lehman claimed to have obtained from a law firm in New York.
The signed paper acknowledging her loans and the attorney's letter were entered as evidence that Lehman was consistent in her story that she would have the money to repay the debt when her assets were unfrozen.
Finally, when they refused to lend her more money, the Raffenspergers testified that Lehman's visits and contact with them became less and less frequent. Brian testified that at the same time his relationship with Lehman began to fall apart and eventually came to an end.
Wrapping up the case, the fourth and final witness, investigating officer James Albert of Newport State Police, testified that he learned that Lehman was married and had been the entire time she was involved with Brian and his family. In addition, Albert learned that she had never been accused of insider trading nor did she have any frozen assets.
In closing arguments, Schechterly stated to the jurors that it is not a crime to fail to pay back a loan and advised them that they would have to find that beyond a reasonable doubt she had deceived the Raffenspergers.
Testimony by the Raffenspergers left no doubt that they felt they were deceived. In the end, the jury, at least in part, agreed, making her responsible for half of the amount lent to her.
"I am pleased with the result but would have liked to see her (Lehman) responsible for the full amount," said Chenot. "I felt she was very deceptive and didn't correct any misconceptions.'
Lehman will return for sentencing by Judge Sullivan.
Because of the large sum of money involved, the theft by deception is a third-degree felony charge. The minimum sentence is 15 to 21 months incarceration.