Can I have some? Oh, okay. Congrats. I >> like notebooks. >> I do. You do so well. I won't do it yet, but I'm going to do stuff. All right, the jury Let's have a seat. Thank you. >> All right, have a seat. Good morning. We will proceed with additional testimony in the state's case and chief, Mr. Burmeister, the state's next witness, please. >> Leand Rogers. Ms. Rogers. Good morning. If you'd step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? >> Thank you. >> You're going to drag that. There you go. >> Mr. Burmister, please proceed. >> Thank you. Miss Rogers, could you please state your full name and then spell your full name for the court? Yes. Landa Rogers. L A S H A W N D A and Rogers is R O D G E R S. >> Thank you. Um ma'am, are you employed? >> Yes. >> How are you employed? >> For New York Life Insurance Company. >> And what do you do for New York Life Insurance Company? >> I'm a senior representative in the call center. Uh, can you briefly explain to the jury what you do as a uh, platinum senior advisor? >> Yes, I take inbound phone calls from platinum agents that service um, clients all over the United States. I answer questions in regards to beneficiary changes, um, ownership changes, make payments on policies, and just discuss anything overall insurance related that they have questions on. Do you know or know of a an agent from Utah named Brian Freckleton? >> Yes, I do. >> And uh did you receive a call from him, an inquiry on June 2nd of 2022? >> Yes, I did. >> So on that day, um did he explain to you a a problem that he did had observed and that he wanted some reconciliation or information? >> Yes, he did. um briefly just tell us what the conversation was about not for the the the purpose of proving any truth just so we know what you were doing afterwards. So briefly explain. >> Okay. So when Mr. Franklin called um he wanted to information on some beneficiary change that had happened on a policy. He wanted to know why they had been changed and finagled with several times. So, I explained to him through research what happened. >> Okay. And so, um, were you able to get that information on that day of the phone call, June 2nd? >> Not all of it. I had to reach out to another department to get additional information and then I followed up with him a few days later. >> I see. Uh, by email, >> correct? >> Okay. Um, can uh we take a look at uh first of all, let's take a brief look at states exhibit 7-20, please. >> Can you scroll through that, Scott? They can see them for you if you'd like. It's not a touch screen. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Does >> if you can't see it, they can see the point. >> My view is kind of fuzzy. Is >> Yes, mine is as well. >> Is there a reason it would be out of focus? It's never been out of focus before. >> That tablet's a little bit out of focus. Okay. >> Um, do you have trouble seeing? >> You mind if I lean over and just make sure you're see? >> Your honor, please. >> She's got a She has as clear a view as I do. Scott, I think it'd be helpful for the witness if you could zoom in. The type is pretty small. >> Thank you, Y. I appreciate it. There we go. Thank you so much. >> Um, okay. So, does this look familiar to you? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you explain to the jury what this is or for the court, I guess, really? >> Well, this page is what the agent had sent to the client. That's not something that I sent. Okay, let's scroll to the very beginning or the that would be the end of the document, the very last page if you will. Okay. So, does that look familiar to you? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is this the email exchange that you had with Mr. Freckleton? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, let's go. We can set that aside for now. Let's take a look at at States exhibit 7-9, please. This is a multi-page document. Actually, 23 pages. As he's scrolling through that, does it look familiar to you? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. I'd like to um have you take a look at um page 13 of this document. Um perhaps we could focus in There you go. >> Thank you. Does that look familiar? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. What what is this information depicting? This information is providing the client's policy number, um who the insured is, the address, the date of birth. It's showing beneficiary changes, address change, beneficiary change, beneficiary change, and it has the policy number, has the insured name there as well. >> Okay. Um, is this um a true and accurate copy of of the policies by sell policies that uh you recall seeing? >> Yes. >> Um the state would offer states exhibit 719. No objection. >> All right. States 7-19 is admitted. Do you want me to publish to the jury? >> Please, your honor. >> Okay. Could we scroll down just one more um little block I think? Okay, so this appears to be um going um in reverse chronical chronological order, right? So the older things are at the bottom and it gets newer as you go towards the top. Is that fair? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So on uh on January 1st um at the very bottom of this document um is there a change um from one to another on that date with one policy? >> There is. Um it's not showing on this specific page but yes there is. It's not showing specifically like on this page. >> So um the do you see the highlighted portion where it says one? >> Yes. >> Two. So um this what is the policy number here? >> 16735141. >> Okay. And in this particular case, who is the owner of that policy? Do you know? Is it it does it show here? >> It does not. >> Okay. Um, does it show who the insured is and who, in other words, the person whose life is being insured? >> Yes, it does. >> And who is that? >> Cody, I'm right. >> Okay. Then does it show who the beneficiary is in this little block here? >> It does not. >> No, I'm sorry. Excuse me. >> Yes, it does. Eric Richardson, partner 100%. I apologize. >> Okay. Then in the next block, um up from that um is is that the same policy? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. The 141. >> Yes. >> Okay. And effective date of of this entry is January 1st. >> January 2nd. >> Um >> I'm sorry. Effective date, excuse me. Yes. January 1st. Yes. >> Okay. And again, this is the policy on the life of Cody, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And has the beneficiary changed? >> Yes. >> Okay. Who has it changed to? >> Corey Richen. Spouse 100%. >> Okay. So where before it said partner uh Eric Richen's partner 100% now it says Corey Richen's spouse 100%. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um can we scroll up just a little bit please Scott? Okay we see another beneficiary change here in the center of the um of this page. Again, it's entered on um January 2nd, but the effective date is January 1st. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And again, we're talking about that same policy 141. >> Yes. >> Cody Wright is the um life that's being insured. >> Yes. >> And beneficiary >> Eric Richens business partner 100%. >> Okay. So, it's changed back. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um, is this the question that um, Freckleton was asking you about this whole issue changing uh, from one to the other? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, how does does the the owner of a policy um can they change their beneficiaries? For example, if I buy a policy on my life for my daughter, could I could I change the policy? Well, I think I want to give 50% to my daughter and 50% to my wife. Could I do that? >> Yes. As the owner, you're able to make those changes. >> Okay. And and you would do it through um some portal or something online or >> Yes, that is an option. Myn.com. >> Okay. um in this I guess you could do it by calling up an agent or calling up um one of your colleagues. >> That is correct. You're able to do so over the phone as well as filling out a form. >> I see. Okay. In this case, um were you trying to find out how it was done and who did it? Not the how and who, just I was trying to figure out exactly. Let me rephrase that. So, I know that it was done by someone at New York Life. I'm sorry. I'm Wait. I was trying to explain to the agent where the changes came from. >> Okay. And you talked to your colleagues? >> Yes. So I reached out to another department to get more clarification on IP addresses etc to confirm who exactly made the changes from the myy portal. >> Okay. So, when you're making these changes uh through the myn uh portal, can a beneficiary or someone unrelated to that policy get in there and change um the beneficiary, for example? >> No. >> Okay. Who can who can get in there and change if they so desire? >> The owner and anyone that has the owner's information. >> Okay. All right. So in other words, if I had act if I found the password and the the credentials, I could log in, I suppose, and change somebody else's. >> Yes. >> So um when you did your research, can we go um first of all, I sorry, I still need 719. I need to go to page um 15 if you could please. Is that page 15? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Does this tell you I think we need to scroll up just one more. So we have the policy ending in 141. Okay. Does this page tell you who the owner is? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. Policy 141 is owned by >> Eric E. Richens. >> Okay. Now I'm uh through with this one. Can we go to 720, please? That I think we've laid the foundation. So I would offer states exhibit 20. This is the email chain. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No. >> States 7-20 is admitted. >> Uh we would ask permission to publish. >> It's up. >> Okay. Can we go to um the very last page of this? Um, so is this your very first email to Brian Freckleton? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um, and in this you're saying, hey, this is in response to your question last week. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um then can we scroll down to the next portion? Um on this um does is this the information that you uh acquired from looking at your the talking to your colleagues and looking at the rest of the data? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So um can you explain to the jury um what it is that you found out? So, I found out that on January 1st, 2022, um the beneficiary was changed from Corey to Eric back to Corey and then Eric again. >> Okay. >> Within a few minutes of each other. >> Okay. All on that same day. >> All on that same day. >> I see. And um were you able to at that moment provide some of the details of how that transaction occurred? >> Yes. Um what was it? >> So after speaking with the representatives in our IT department, they provided they stated that all were from Eric Rich's login and all from the same IP address. >> Okay. Then um did you continue working on this for a couple more days after this and exchanging emails with Eric uh with Brian Freckleton? I believe this may have been the last one. >> Let's let's go to June 9th, please. So, it should be near the top. Couple bullets. Okay. This is the email from you. >> Yes. We are going backwards. I'm sorry. I think >> June 9th. >> Yes. >> Okay. and um you're re reviewing further information. Um a general point you you give a general point about who can log on just generally speaking in order to get into somebody's account you have to have what >> their login credentials. Okay. So that means a password um a registered email address. >> That is correct. And a username. >> Okay. And in this particular case um it appeared to be coming from whose email address? >> Corey Richards. >> Now does it did you also get further information that all interaction was coming from that same email address? >> That is correct. Okay. Okay. Um, that's all I have for this witness this morning. >> Good morning, M. Rogers. >> Good morning, Alex. >> How are you? >> I'm doing fine, sir. How are you? I'm doing great. Good seeing you again. >> Good to see you as well. >> I wanted to make some clarifications. Um I'd like to talk to you about client IDs. >> Okay. >> Is that all right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um from the documents that we've seen, what I'll do is I will pull up um the uh let's go with 720. I believe it was state 720. No, I'm sorry. 719. Thank you. >> One moment. >> Do you see that there? >> No. Nothing has Okay. Yes. >> Perfect. Now, that client ID right there, can you >> Do you want me to show this to the jury? >> Oh, sure, judge. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I apologize. >> Very good. >> That client ID we see there that's highlighted, whose client ID is that? Eric's. >> That one's Eric's, >> I believe, just by just first glance that this is Eric's. Yes. >> Okay. And then if we can actually, you know what I'll do? If we could pull up, let's do this one. One second. Can you just publish this just to Miss Rogers, please? >> And let me know if you recognize this. >> Yes. >> And what is this? >> This is And would you please make it a little bit bigger to man? And you know what I can do >> is if this is helpful, this is just a hard copy of it. I may probably make it easier this. >> Is that the same? Is that right? >> There you go. >> Thank you. >> If you want to just go through that and see if you recognize that and if you could focus on the client ID or try to find a client ID there. >> So this page is not does not have a client ID. listed. Um, it does have the owner's name, Eric, and it has his address and email address here, but it's not specific to the client ID. It's not listed. >> So, is this one similar to the one we just saw that was Cody's >> on seven uh if we could for her. >> That's two different type of views for this. But that other view just showed the insured information, >> but this is showing just Eric's information. So, let's go ahead and maybe this will help. So, that client ID that's listed here is for Cody. >> For Cody, >> correct? That's the one that's circled. Maybe we go to page 14 >> of what document? >> Um, this is for >> So is are we talking 719 or we talking 10:46? >> 10:46 right now. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And so there on your screen um is just a electronic copy of what I just showed you. And that client ID, that one is uh Mr. Wright. Is that correct? or or Eric's. >> No, Eric's starts with a nine, not with this one. 53. >> Okay, let's do this. The one we previously showed you, you had indicated that that was Eric. So, maybe there was a mixup. So, Eric starts with a nine. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Is it 99? Um well look before we complicate more things uh we move to admit this uh document judges uh defense exhibit 1047. >> That's not the one on the screen right now. >> This one is >> this is 1047. >> Yeah, they look the same. >> 1046. >> 1046. >> Let's go back to the beginning and make sure we're talking. >> Can we go to the first page then? >> Okay. >> So they look >> So this is defendants 1046. Mr. confirm. Mr. Any objection? >> Well, I think we need foundation to to establish exactly which one we're looking at. Um, and is it different or the same as >> Mr. Amos? Just for clarity of the record. Would you lay a little foundation for >> we put 1046 and state 719 side by side? I think that would be the clearest because they look identical. >> Okay. >> And then we'll and then I'll ask Miss Rogers some questions. All right, >> that's perfect. >> Is that better? >> Yes. >> Okay, so on the left hand side we have defense exhibit 1046. On the right hand side we have state 719. They appear to be the exact same uh format. Correct. >> Correct. >> Except that one's for Eric and one is for Cody. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. And within these documents, uh this is where the client IDs are. Correct. >> There's no client >> not on this first page. I apologize. >> Correct. >> Okay. But the remaining pages, if we could scroll through them just so Miss Rogers can see And so that does does that kind of tell you the all of the different policies or client IDs related to Mr. Wright as well as Mr. Richens? >> It does. >> Okay. At this point, judge, we would move to admit 1046. Uh I believe that's in a foundation. >> Mr. Burmeister. Yes. >> Uh, defendants 1046 is admitted. >> Perfect. Okay. So, with this information now, uh, as you can see on the right hand side, um, on the very top, and we could zoom it in if you'd like, it indicates Cody Wright. Could you go a little bit higher, uh, to show Cody Wright's name there? Okay. Now with that information on the right hand side, is that Mr. Wright's client ID or is that Mr. Richen's right client ID? >> That's Cody Wright's client ID. >> Okay. Ending in 8252. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then on the left hand side, if we could do the same just showing Mr. Richens and then the client ID. >> And is that Mr. Richens? >> No, that's Cody's. >> That's Cody's. Mhm. >> And if we go to um on the U if you could highlight on the right hand side it is 1 2 3 4 January 24th there indicates a client ID there >> that is Eric. >> That is Eric. Okay. >> Yes. So with that information, if that client ID 992141444 is >> Eric. >> Erics. >> Mhm. And if we could go back to the very top, um, the client ID, if you could highlight or call that out on the right hand side, starts with zero 532 8252. >> Correct. >> That is. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Now, with that information, that is how we could or your your office could determine where the changes were made. Correct. >> No. Um, how do we determine the changes were made? >> Oh, I'm sorry. That That's correct. Correct. I apologize. >> That's okay. >> Those are the client IDs that were used uh to figure out when changes were made, who made the changes. Correct. >> It wasn't the client ID that was used. It was the the actual owner's information, but not the client ID. That comes into play in a different way, but not in regards to logging in. Cuz there's different ways to log into my ML. You can loging in with your name, social security number, and then you have to have an email address, and then the other way is to use a client ID, but you still have to have an email address associated with it. >> Correct. Let's go there. Maybe this will be helpful. Um, if we could pull up the state exhibit 720, please. And if we could go to the last page, if we could call that out just so it's a little bit clearer for Miss Rogers. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, uh, maybe what we're talking about here is different. So, I'll get on the same page with you. >> Okay. >> This is the Eric Richens login. >> Yes. >> Correct. Is what you indicated. If we could publish this to the jury. >> Okay. So, this one is saying that it was all from Eric Richen's login. >> Mhm. >> And now what you just indicated, and maybe this was where I was mistaken, Eric's Richen's login, uh, it could be an email. you indicated >> it could be either his name and his date of birth and the last for his social. Okay. >> And then on the next screen it's going to ask for an email address to do verification. >> Okay. >> Or they can put in the client ID and then on the next page it's going to ask for clarification. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry for an email for verification. >> And so that's kind of the login process. >> That is correct. >> For my NY. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then if we could go to page two of that same document at the bottom, that second bullet point there, if we could call that out for Miss Rogers so it's clear. >> Thank you. >> Yes. And this is what you're referring to that they cannot log in with any other credentials besides what we have on record. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And in this case, what did you have on record? the credentials that we had on record were Eric's name but a different email address. Um it wasn't an email address that so two clients would never have the same email address associated with one policy. So in looking at Eric's policy and the email address versus another policy that had the same email address is where we came up with that information. >> So then the login information or the login email >> Mhm. when you're referring here to Corey, it's the email that's associated with it. Yes. >> Okay. And that's where I wanted to get to. So on the second bullet point where it indicates it does appear that Corey is the one that has been managing the online activity. It's based on the fact that her email is being used. >> The email is being used. Correct. >> Okay. And her email, do you recall what that one was? >> Corey Richens. I'm not quite sure what that it may have been at gmail.com or AOL. I'm not sure. >> Thank you. >> Do you recall that document? >> Yes, at Hotmail. Yes. >> Okay. And what does that document show? >> Oh, it says Corey Garden@hotmail.com. For both. >> And what do you mean for both? >> For Eric's profile and for Corey's profile. >> Okay. And then um are they different client IDs? >> Yes. >> Okay. Which one's of the one on the left? If you could describe whose it is. Um >> it's Eric's. >> And what is his client ID? >> 153 28252. >> 8252. And then uh Miss Richens >> 989455105. >> Perfect. Map approach. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> Okay. Now, you had indicated at We could take that down. You had indicated there um in that in that email with Mr. Freckleton that you had to reach back out to the I I believe your IT people. >> That is correct. >> And they produced a document that outlined exactly what had happened. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. If we can just for Miss Rogers pull up um >> yeah. >> Yes. >> Can you see that, Miss Rogers? >> Barely. >> Okay. Let's zoom in maybe at the top and just scroll down through her or for her. >> Thank you. >> So, let me know if you as we're scrolling through if you recognize this. >> Yes. >> Okay. And can you explain what what it is? This is the IT department. Um, just basically showing who the IP what happened with the three changes and the IP addresses. But this came from someone else. >> Yes. It wasn't from you. >> That is correct. >> Correct. You u had you >> this witness is not part of that email chain. At least that's what we she's been. >> That is correct. >> Yeah, that's correct. Is that an objection or >> Well, if if we're going to quote from it, yes, it's here. >> I think he's just asking a question about it. Any other objection, Mr. B? >> No, that's I just you can ask questions about that. Don, >> Mr. Ramos, please proceed. >> U in everything that you were doing, Miss Rogers, uh in terms of uh trying to assist Mr. Freckleton in answering his question, uh did you happen to either come across this or do you recognize this during that? I've never. >> And if we could go to page two as well. >> And if we could uh kind of highlight the left column there. >> So this information I don't recognize that it came from another another department representative, but I did not send this to him directly. >> No. No. And I'm not asking that. Just if you had reviewed it during No. Okay. No. And would this have come do you know from uh the the information you were talking about the IT people with Okay. >> Yes. >> Perfect. >> And well actually if we could take that down. >> Okay. So >> yeah. Can we just identify just for the record what that document is? It's 1047 I believe. Right. >> Uh so she doesn't recognize it that it wasn't sent to her. So >> just for the record it's okay. I just want to make sure the record is clear that number >> 1047 and Miss Ro Miss Rogers uh identified that she knows what it is, but it is not something that was sent by her or to her. >> That is correct. >> And so we're not going to be asking questions. >> Okay. All right, Miss Rogers, the question I have that is now that we have the client IDs all squared away. >> Okay. And as you indicated that they are tied to email addresses. Okay. If we could pull back up uh states exhibit uh 720 please. Second page at the bottom. If we could go back to that if we could publish that to the jury. This statement from you uh or this email from you to Mr. Freckleton. You indicated that it does appear that Cory is the one that has been maintaining the online activity. >> Correct. >> So I'd like to clarify that the reason you indicated Corey is only because it's her email that was associated with the client ID. Correct. >> Correct. >> In your investigation and you and New York Life, there was there is nothing at all that tells you that can tell you that it was actually Miss Richens who was behind the screen when this happened. Correct. >> Well, the IP information would be the only other thing. >> Correct. So, did you do did you do a search for the IP address? >> No, I did not. From another department, >> right? So, you didn't do investigation into the IP address. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, based on the IP address, which you haven't done anything on, um the reason that you indicate in that statement that it was Corey is because of her email address. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And uh as you indicate there, if someone else knows the password um and you indicate her information and to be clear, the individual or the login information was tied to the client ID, right? When we saw the beneficiary change or for the policy, I'm sorry. >> Correct. >> Okay. If we could go to the last page, please. And these changes all happened within sixish minutes. Yes. >> Okay. And at the end of the day between 7:21 and 7:27, everything remained or went back to being the same. Correct. >> It did. >> Okay. >> No further questions. Thank you, Miss Rogers. >> You're welcome. >> Sorry for all the back and forth on the client ID. >> That's okay. >> All right. Have a good day. >> You did the same. Thank you, sir. >> Mr. B, >> I have no further questions. >> May we release this witness? That would be the state's request, your honor, that she be allowed to go cuz she's got a plane to catch. >> You are free to go. You're released from the subpoena. Please travel safely. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Please watch your step. >> Next, the state will call Brian Franklin. >> Okay. Mr. Franklin, would you step in front of Britney? We'll get you sworn in, sir. >> Please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? Please have a seat. >> Please proceed. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Freckleton, could you please state your full name and then spell your last name for the record? >> That uh it's Brian B R I A N Freckleton. F R E C C A L E T O N. >> Sir, are you employed? >> I am. >> How? >> Uh I own a little firm uh called Freckleton Financial Group and we are involved in insurance and investments. >> Mr. Freckleton, I'm sorry to ask you. Will you pull that microphone a little closer to you? >> Sure. Thank you, sir. >> It's the first time somebody's told me I was talking too low. >> You do have a low voice, so we got to project out to the very reaches of this. >> Okay. >> Thank you, sir. Um, do you do you know a person by the name of Eric Richens? >> I do. >> And Cody Wright? >> I do. >> Um, how do you know them? >> Um, they were introduced to me through uh Linda and Jean Richens. Uh they were very early clients of mine in the in the early years. And uh and then uh Eric reached out to me. Um I think it was 2007. Uh he had just uh recently got married and asked me if I could do some life insurance for him and his first wife. >> Okay. Um uh now you mentioned the that situation was the did he buy some insurance from you at that time? >> Yes. >> On himself >> and his wife. >> Okay. And um that was in 2007, >> right? >> Okay. Um did you subsequently come to know Corey Richens? >> Yes. >> Um have you met her before? >> Yes. uh more than one occasion. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Now, um are you familiar with CE Masonry? >> I am. >> And uh did you do work for CE Masonry? >> I did. >> Okay. Um are you familiar with the term by sell agreement? >> I am. >> Could you briefly explain to the jury what a buyell agreement is? We don't have to go into great detail, but >> we're dealing here with a partnership. Is that right? CME is a partnership. Eric and Cody. >> Yes. >> And so what is a buyell agreement? >> A byell agreement is a uh an agreement that >> one or or two or more partners will put together to um uh protect from the uh uh partners uh dying, retiring, uh becoming disabled. It's a document that allows them to um uh be bought out usually of that uh of that partnership. Um in the case of uh this one, it was called a cross purchase agreement. Um and the way it's set up is is that we um take >> transitioned into in this case. So, did you help uh put together parts of a byell agreement that involved Cody, Wright, and Eric? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um in in this, uh situation, um go ahead and explain what that buyell agreement did for Okay. Eric and Cody >> in in context with the the uh those two. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Um, so the agreement uh is usually funded. Um, and life insurance is usually the least expensive way to fund uh large amounts of money. In this case, it was uh $2 million. They felt the company was worth about 4 million at the time. Um, and uh and so we put uh uh $2 million of life insurance on each of them. Uh Eric would own the policy on Corey. Uh co Cody um and Cody would own a policy on Eric. Um in the event of um one of their deaths, uh the owner of the contract would also be the beneficiary and that money would go to uh Cody in this case. So Cody receives $2 million. he receives it tax-free uh based on life insurance. Uh and then he um turns around, he's obligated, as is the estate, to to buy that stock. And so he has to come in with that $2 million and and buy the stock from uh the estate of of Eric or the trust of Eric um in this case. >> All right. Um, let's You said that there's $2 million on each man for the total value of the company being 4 million at the time this >> agreement was entered. >> Yes. >> And so, was there more than one policy to come up with the 2 million? >> Yes. Uh we started out uh with uh um a million dollars of term insurance and a million dollars of what they call traditional whole life insurance. >> Okay. Um initially was there two terms 1 million each on each guy and then it u one was converted to a a whole life product. Well, the initial the initial policies were 1 million of the permanent insurance and the and then 1 million of term insurance and then later down the line we converted the term insurance over to >> permanent. Okay. >> Um could we have that one um aid the demonstrative exhibit? Okay. Does this Can you see this again thing? Um does that portray the various policies that we're talking about? >> Yeah, that uh the first four policies there um uh >> would that be helpful in conveying your testimony to the jury? >> Sure. >> Would ask permission to publish. >> Mr. Ramos, any objection to this demonstrative? I don't know the number. >> It's not labeled. I just >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Beister. >> Okay. So, the the four on the left are $1 million policies for each man. >> Yes. The the the starting from the left going to the right. Yes. >> Okay. And then the the second policies are later converted into whole life policies. Those two in the middle uh were term insurance policies and they were converted over to um the the last two to the right. I see. And so um these n these policy numbers the two first two digits 14 represent uh one type of product and then the one six in the whole life represents that they were whole life products. Um the policy numbers don't necessarily uh reflect the type of pol life insurance policy but um but the policy numbers that you have there are correct. >> Okay. >> All right. So um there's one policy I'd like to focus in on just went away. Um could we have that back again? I'm not sure what happened. Okay. On the lower right hand corner there's 16735141. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um do do you have a um some sort of notice system or portal or something that New York Life contacts you as an agent? >> We have a a portal system. Um, and in that portal system is what we call alerts. Um, it allows us to see if uh what clients may have done or confirmations of things we've done for our clients that got done. Um, if money comes in, it tells us that if it's the um, you know, the beneficiaries have been changed or checkmatics or banks or >> stuff like that, it tells me that. So, on January 1st of 2022, did you receive a an alert? >> I did. >> Okay. Uh uh can you tell us what the alert was to you? >> Yes, it uh um was uh an alert that um the two that the policies on Eric and um Cody uh the beneficiary had have been attempted to be changed. >> Okay. Um, and so what did you do about that? >> Um, well, I I called uh both um Cody and Eric um and both of them went to message like usual. They were very busy guys uh and uh hard to get a hold of. Um and so we got a notice that that uh someone that they had changed the uh tried to change the beneficiaries of the policies and I called them and >> do you remember today what who had been changed to who? >> Yeah, the uh beneficiary had been changed to uh Corey Richens >> from >> from uh well in this case it was from Eric. >> Okay. All right. Um, and to be clear, so Eric is a beneficiary. So in this type of policy, he's the owner. >> He is the owner. >> Okay. And so it was actually on insurance on the life of Cody, right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. And so um, you talked to Did Did they contact Cody and Eric call you back or >> They did. >> Okay. You explained, did you explain to him what happened? >> I did. >> Okay. And um at some point, did you reach out to New York Life? >> I did. >> And did um on June 2nd, were you able to talk to uh Ms. Rogers, Landre Rogers? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then um have an exchange with her? >> I did. >> Okay. Can I just see? Uh, it's already been admitted. 7-20. >> Is this the email chain that you had with Landanda Rogers? >> Lower the um >> Yeah. Okay. If I haven't done this, um, I would offer states exhibit 719 and 720. >> Are those same group? >> They're already have no more questions for this witness. >> Mr. Ramos, please. >> Morning, Mr. President. >> Good morning. >> How are you? >> I'm well, thank you. >> You indicated that you had set up these um life insurance policies for Mr. You're right. Mr. Richens, correct? >> Correct. >> Um, do you do you recall when you had set up the one for Eric approximately >> the year? >> Which one? >> Uh, this one that's >> having to do with the B cell. >> Yeah, correct. >> Yeah, I think it was um >> or how about this? Uh, anything with New York Life. Maybe we'll just start there. >> Well, there was a policy put on Eric in 2007. >> Okay. Um, it was uh $500,000 of term insurance. >> And when would this one have been started? This by sell >> the I believe the buy cell was done in um started in uh 20 >> 2020 I guess. >> Okay. I'm going to show you a document. Maybe that'll refresh your recollection. >> Please. >> All right. If we could pull up uh just for the witness, your honor. Temp 48. >> Just Yep. Yeah. We'll just see if he recognizes it if we could. Yes. Perfect. Thank you so much. >> Do you recognize this? And we can scroll down. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then at the very top there, sorry, go back. Uh you're included in that email or your name comes up. Correct. >> Yeah. This is a uh um something that uh New York Life, the carrier um sends out to me uh or myself and and uh and the insured. >> Okay. And is this kind of like a >> or the owner? I'm I apologize to the owner. >> To the owner. Is this kind of like an uh an introductory kind of welcome email? >> No, this is uh the documents. >> Okay, perfect. >> Yeah. >> Now, uh this is on Mr. Richens, correct? Um, I would assume so. I I I really can't tell, but I would assume that it is because it says um um that it it's a required signature for Eric Richens, but that doesn't tell me who it is. it because the insured and the owner has to sign these applications. >> Sure. And then when you set this up, did you also assist with the email process or the login process to uh you can we can take it down my NY? >> I did not. >> You did not. Okay. We're not allowed to do that. the the owner of the uh is the only one that has the right to legally go into those accounts. >> And when you receive this email? >> Yes. >> Um also Mr. Richens was included in it, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And we could pull it back up. And which email does he use? >> Uh for this or otherwise? >> Correct. >> For this he uses uh uh uh the uh um Corey Dardenhotmile.com. Okay. And this was back when >> 20 says on there June 11th of 20. >> Okay. >> Your honor, we'd move to uh admit 1048 at this point. >> No objection. >> Okay. Defense 1048 is >> Thank you. >> Do you want to publish? >> Yes, please. Thank you. If we could just uh for the jury just highlight that top portion there. All right. And my only other question, I'm not sure if you know the answer to this. Are you familiar with the client IDs for Mr. Richens as well as Mr. Wright? >> I know they have them, but I couldn't even come close. >> Understood. >> Yes. In your conversations with Miss Rogers, >> you receive, we saw some email communication, correct? >> Yes. >> Did you receive anything at all related to the IP address or the client IDs used? >> Yes. >> Do you recall if I show you uh I'm going to show you an image. Let me know if you recall it. Okay. Okay. >> Sounds good. Pull that one up, please. Just for the witness judge and counsel. Uh 10:46. >> Yes. >> If we could call it out >> and we'll scroll through it. >> Yeah. >> Just let me know if you end up, you know, I'm sure it's in a different format with all these, but just let me know if you recall seeing this. It's about three pages long. This was uh Yeah. I mean, this is this is the email where that I literally requested. >> Perfect. Yeah. >> And so, if we could go to page two and if we could just kind of call out that left column that doesn't look like the matrix. And do you see that right there? >> I do. >> And do you recognize that policy number? Um or do you have Oh, there I I I don't recognize it, but I will assume that it's the one on, you know, one of the one of the two, >> right? >> And that's the the reason you were calling as you indicated the do or the document you were requesting, correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And to the left of that, um it says policy owner and to the left of that it has a client ID. Seeing that, does that do you recall whose client ID that is? I yeah I I I don't know. >> That's fine. >> I apologize. >> I I see a lot of client ID. >> I would imagine >> I Yeah, >> no problem. Judge, at this point, we'd move to admit uh 10:47. >> Well, I didn't scroll through pretty fast. I did not see Mr. Franklin on the email. So, >> would you folks approach her? Just one second. Mr. Freckleton >> chair. >> In reviewing this document, is this the document that you requested or that you received? Um, I don't remember the exact document, but it was similar to this. Okay. I it just told me who uh uh where the uh that the polic changes in the beneficiary had been done and then changed back. >> Okay. >> Renew my request to admit. >> Uh I don't think foundation has been made. He hasn't identified this topic. >> There foundation objection is sustained. >> Okay. No problem. >> Mr. Franklin. >> Yes. >> You could take that down. Thanks. At one point you requested information about the changes, correct? >> Yes. >> From Miss Rogers, correct? >> Yes. >> Or from New York Life. >> Yes. >> Okay. And at one point you were told that changes were made. >> I knew they had been changed because I had gotten an alert and then that made me >> confirm >> confirm with them that it had been changed. It's a >> And you received that information back? >> I did. >> Okay. No further questions. Thank you, judge. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. >> Gotcha. >> Indeed, Leseand sent you the email that was Yes. >> 720, please. >> One moment. >> Isn't this here? The >> That's more like what? Okay. >> Yeah. And um >> I'm sorry. Did you want to show that to the >> Yes, please. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> This here is the document you had received from Lashonda. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, um you defense showed you an exhibit that said it was established June 11th of 2020. um the policies. >> Um yes. Okay. I believe so. Didn't you change or alter it somehow in November u with in conjunction with uh Miss Bowman Carter >> um >> which included >> policies >> well the in in changed it in there's a suddenly a trust involved. >> Yes. Yes. Uh >> that's okay. I just >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh-huh. Mr. Ro, >> no further question. Thank you, Judge. >> May this witness be released? Council. >> Yes, please. If he could be subject to recall, judge, he could not be >> You're free to go today. You may need to be recalled by defense council. We'll give you some notice. >> Okay. Uh in the meantime, please don't talk to anybody about the case. Please don't watch any uh coverage of the Okay. All right. You got it. >> Thank you, sir. You're good to go. Do you mind taking that with you? Thank you, sir. Uh, Mr. Bledworth, your honor, >> I know we've only been at an hour, but perhaps we could take a very brief break. >> No problem. Let's do it. Please rise for the jury. Please have a seat. >> Mr. Blood, forgive me. I couldn't tell if you actually wanted a break or if you just needed to address something on the record. Janna, I need to go to the bathroom. >> No problem. We're going to take a break until quarter to 11. Thank you. Courts in recess. >> A text from the state, which none of us saw until we were sitting here in court where they have now provided um documentation that Ms. lobber did in fact violate drug court during the time that she after she was cooperating in this case. That's Gigglio information. I did not have that information to cross her with. They further for the first time um disclosed. The text messages between her and Detective Maynard that I asked her about. What's in these text messages should have been available. I could have used this on cross-examination. It's different than what she testified to. This is Gigglio that was not given to us and we move for a mistrial. >> Oh, okay. Pause. So, you're calling it Gio information because you believe it is information that is material to impeachment of one of the state's witnesses? >> Yes. >> Okay. And do you have any basis to say that the state had it before his law was put on the stand? >> Well, this was information that we requested. It was information we requested when we tried to get >> answer my question belong to Maynard in community. >> Yes, it belonged to Detective Maynard. Detective Maynard had this information and sent an email to Mr. Bworth about the violation prior to the trial starting. >> Mr. Bworth, >> I'm not entirely sure what uh text message this defense received this morning. It was not from me. I had not heard of it until just now. Um, I understand that about 10 days ago, the defense submitted a grandma request >> um to the sheriff's office asking for >> um information related to the supervision of uh Carmen Lobber >> by Mr. Mayor >> by M. Well, they generally by Mr. They asked for any information on all supervision. The supervision was by Eric Maynard. >> Yeah. >> The I I think they're referencing a um a violation of probation involving she was caught with an alcoholic beverage. Is that what we're talking about? >> That's correct. I provided that information to defense maybe three weeks ago in an email. Um, >> okay. Uh, Ms. Lewis, I'm not going to shoot from the hip on this. You have to put this in a written motion so I can see it all with the timeline and the content. Let the state respond to it. >> Yes, I can. I I will just state for the record the email about the alcohol violation was sent to Mr. Bworth November 15th, 2023. Well, but what about Mr. Bledward's email to defense that he just referenced? >> I saw no such email. >> Okay. Well, we'll get into it, but you've got to put this in writing. Uh, we're not going to do this on oral representations in the moment. >> Understood. >> Okay. Uh, anything else on that? >> Not on that. No. Do you want to address? >> Um, do you have one other issue, your honor? I know that it is always tradition that the state gets to sit closest to the jury. In every trial I've ever been in, that's the case and we actually prefer it that way. But we are getting reports from individuals who are watching this this um matter on television that particularly yesterday, but also previously to yesterday that um members of the prosecution team are making faces at the jury during our cross-examinations. And we would ask that >> with respect, I have a better view of this than any of the cameras. I haven't seen anything like that. >> Okay. Well, we've asked for the time stamps and we're going to try to provide it to the court, but all I'm asking is just a gentle admonishment that that's not appropriate and to try to refrain from doing that to the extent that is happening. Um, also the second concern that I have is when Mr. Bledworth is tendering the witness to the defense, um, he's making a statement that I believe the defense will have questions for you. Um, we do believe that's I'm sure it's not intentional, but it's burden shifting, and we would ask that he not make that statement at the conclusion. We're not required to ask them any questions. So, we would just ask that that no longer be stated to the witnesses in the presence of the jury. >> Uh, yeah. As a matter of law, I don't view that as any instruction to the jury or comment regarding burden shifting. If you stand up and say you have no questions, you have no questions. I'm not going to admonish anybody for anything that isn't happening. The only faces I've seen are council at me and so uh I think we're well within the proper bounds of appropriate conduct from what I can see from here. >> Anything else? >> We'll submit it in a motion, your honor. >> Okay. All right. Uh Mr. Bledworth, anything before we invite the jury in? >> No, your honor. >> Okay. Mr. Ramos, you're ready to go? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Burmeister, the state. Oh, I'm sorry. May we invite the jury in, please? >> Judge, I think you heard defense doesn't have any objections to the exhibits coming in uh through his codes. >> Got it. >> Okay, we'll just need to create a record in real time. Yep. for the jury. Please have a seat as you come in. All right, have a seat. Mr. Burmeister, the state's next witness, please. >> And coat. >> Ms. Coats, if you would step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in, please. You'll raise your right hand. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? Thank you. Please have a seat. >> Please proceed. >> Thank you. Can you please spell uh state your name and spell your last name for the record? >> Ann Coats. C O A T E S. >> Ma'am, are you employed? >> Yes. >> Uh by whom? >> Uh CMFG Life Insurance Company, also known as True Sage. >> I see. And um how what capacity do you serve them? >> I'm a senior manager in the claims department for our consumer claims. And have you been there how long? >> Almost 23 years. >> Um at True Stage is an insurance company? >> Yes. >> And um if uh is true stage associated with a particular um business? >> Yes. Um we offer insurance through credit unions. >> I see. mostly >> any particular credit unions? >> Um, a wide variety of credit unions throughout the United States. >> I see. Penfed being one of them. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and so uh did you receive uh can we see 7-21, please? Did you receive a uh application, a written application for an insurance policy from uh allegedly Corey and Eric Richens? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you see u states exhibit 721? >> I do. >> Um state would offer states exhibit 721. >> Okay. State 7-21 is admitted. >> Okay. Um in here the author or authors um have listed a a mail address, mailing address. >> Yes. >> Um can you uh is that the uh PO box 759? >> It is. >> Okay. And um is there a phone number for um Eric Richens? >> Yes. >> Could you state that phone number, please? >> It is 801 8929317. >> I see. Okay. Was there any email address given for Eric Richens? >> No. >> Okay. Um, now can we scroll down just a uh a little bit? At some point, does does this application connect to a method of payment? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you go to the last page there? Um so this application gives um is this for an automatic withdrawal? >> It is. >> Okay. And the account number given >> uh it's ending 6577. >> 6577. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Um now it's purportedly signed by two different individuals, Corey and Eric there at the bottom. >> Okay. Um, let me go back up to the top, please. It's Is there a place on this form for a social security number? >> Yes. >> Where? >> Uh, about halfway down >> on the front page. >> Yes. >> Okay. We Okay. And in this case, it's uh been redacted. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you remember today anything about that uh social security number? >> I do. Um Eric Richen social security number uh the last six digits are transposed. >> I see. Okay. Uh once this do you know when this application came in? We received this application on February 3rd, uh, 2022. >> And when was it approved? >> On February 4th, 2022. >> Okay. And, um, did any sort of notice go out to the owner to, for example, Eric to let him know? Yes, we sent a billing statement um confirming that there would be an automatic withdrawal for the premiums. >> Can we see states exhibit 722, please? >> And then also a welcome um letter with a contract. >> I see. Is this the welcome letter you're talking about? >> Yes. >> Okay. And in this uh does it indicate where it was mailed to? It does. Um, PO Box 759 in Thomas, Utah, 84036-0759. >> Not 282, Willow Court. >> No. >> Okay. And um this 77. >> Yes. And when will that uh initial uh deduction come? >> Uh the first deduction uh we were notifying him would come on February 14th, 2022. >> Okay. Now, did um Eric Richens have other policies any other policies besides this one we've just been talking about? >> Yes. Okay. Um there wasn't there a policy of accidental death and dismemberment policy? >> Yes. >> Um ultimately valued at 300,000. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And there was a another policy um issued June 9th of 2017. >> Um it was actually issued May 12th of 2017. backdated to that day. >> Yes, backdated. >> Why that day? >> Uh I believe that was the day before his birthday and um we do that sometimes to um we call it to save age and to save on premium. >> I'm I'm sorry your honor c can we publish seven uh 22 please >> with the objection Mr. Ramos? >> No objection. >> Thank you. 7:22 is admitted and published and uh we've highlighted the mailing address, the account and the first date of withdrawal. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, going back to this second policy, the two it was a 250,000 dollar policy life insurance. >> Yes. >> On Eric Richen's life. >> That's right. >> And um that policy, do you know uh how it was being paid from what account? >> Um I would like to refer to the um application if you have that. >> Okay. Would that help you refresh your recollection? >> I approached the witness, your honor. >> Yes, sir. >> Do you recognize that? >> I do. >> What is that? just for the record >> is an application for insurance. >> Okay. You can just examine it for a moment. Does that help refresh your recollection? >> It does. >> Um how uh by what account was this taken? The payments taken, I guess. Yep. Sorry. Just one moment here. The account number is blocked out on the one um page, but it it says on another page here, checking account ending in 2204. >> Okay. So, thank you. >> Mhm. >> Is that the the welcome letter like we talked about on >> Yes. Okay. Then um then there's this policy. Um now how does one make a claim or how is it initiated I guess? >> Yeah, there are several ways that we can accept a claim. Um, a lot of times it's by phone from a family member or beneficiary. Um, in this case, um, what we do is twice a year in the state of Utah, we would run our policies up against a social security death master file list. >> Mhm. >> And that's how we found that he passed away. >> Okay. >> And that was done in April of 2022. >> Okay. So, um the first this policy we talked about the the uh accidental death and dismemberment. >> Yes. >> That was that ever paid out? >> That was not >> okay. Because it's it wasn't an accident or or uh dismemberment. >> That's right. >> Okay. So then, um the policy, the $250,000 term policy, >> um Yes. >> Was that ever paid out? >> It was. Okay. Um, let's take a look um at 7-12, please. >> Do you recognize 7-12? >> Yes. >> And what is that? >> Uh, this is proof that we made the payment. >> Okay. And how was that payment made? >> This payment was made by check. >> Okay. um in the amount of uh 251,558.882. >> Yes. >> Okay. It's a $250,000 policy. Why that difference? >> There was a partial premium refund and state interest that was um added to the 250,000. >> Okay. Can the statement asked to publish offer and publish? >> No objection. States 7-12 is admitted. >> Okay. >> That was sent out when did you say? >> Um, this was sent out June 17th, 2022. >> I see. Okay. Um now let's um talk about the um is there a a way in which a policy owner or a beneficiary can communicate with uh true stage um and a record is kept of that communication? Yes, they can call us or email us at any time and we keep a um claim log for for every call or every transaction that's made. >> Okay. Um those things are called claim notes, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can we take a look at 7-11, please? >> Do you recognize that? >> Yes. >> Um is that one of the claim notes? >> It is. >> Okay. And it looks like 220 state would offer states exhibit uh 7-11. >> Okay. >> Permission to publish >> 7-11 is admitted. >> There's a number at the top in this case 2204 uh 22032. >> Yes, that's the claim number. >> Okay. And that represents the year 22.04 is the month. >> Yes. >> And then 22 is the 22nd day of that month. >> Yes. >> And this is happens to be the 32nd uh claim made that day. >> Yes. >> Okay. So this one occurs the the claim is initiated on uh April 22nd of 2022. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then um let's take a look at also 7-23 please. State would offer states exhibit 723. >> No objection. State 723 is admitted. >> I ask for permission to publish. In this case, um, the claim is initiated on April 28th of 2022. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so um, initially at least is one claim for a particular policy or another. >> Yes. But over time, do they kind of bleed into the to the same one? >> They do. Any action taken on one claim is is noted on the other claim as well, so that we can um provide the best service to our beneficiaries as possible. >> Okay. So, I'd like to focus in on this one for a bit here. Um, on April 28th, is there a discussion between um, I guess this column that says desk and has some codes. Is that uh, is that who the person is from true stage that happens to be talking that day? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so on April um 28th there's is there a discussion between Corey Richens and um True Stage? >> Yes. >> And in this particular case they're talking about both policies, aren't they? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh that is the policy the $250,000 policy as well as the more recent 100,000. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then um on May 4th, is there another communication in this notes with Corey Richens? >> Yes. >> What what's happening in that communication? Um, we received a call from Miss Richens and she wanted the status of the claims >> and so we provided the status and informed her that we received a pending death certificate but we would also need the final death certificate. >> I see. And in this case the person taking these notes is uh saying DC meaning death certificate. Okay. >> So it's still pending. So on June 7th, another communication. >> Yes. >> Um involving Corey Richens. >> Yes. >> Um so in June 7th, does Crew Stage receive the death certificate? >> We did receive the final death certificate that day. >> And and what does it say the cause of death was? >> Drug intoxication. Fentinyl. Okay. >> So, on June 14th, does True Stage talk to Corey Richens about they now have a death certificate? >> Yes, we did. >> And so, uh, what is the question of Corey? Um, the question was if the drug fentanyl was prescribed to Eric Richens and that's important because the $50,000 accidental D uh death benefit writer as well. >> Excuse me, just want to say that extra 50,000 is on top of the $250,000 policy. Okay, go ahead. Continue. I'm sorry. Um, it provides an a provision and an exclusion where the prescription would need to to have been provided by a doctor and um administered on the advice of a doctor in order to be payable. >> Okay. And and uh the person writes some notes about what Corey Richens told them. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what does Corey Richens say? Uh she said that the fentanyl was not prescribed and she also added that she doesn't know how her husband got that. >> Okay. Um the next day uh Corey Richens called again. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what um was stated in that conversation? Um, it was the same thing that she provided us that the drug was not prescribed. >> Okay. >> And that she doesn't know where it came from. >> Okay. On June 21st, um, did she call again? >> Yes. >> And, um, asking about a status. >> She did. >> And what did you guys tell her? We told her that the uh $250,000 claim was paid, but the uh most recent claim, the $100,000 claim, um was still being reviewed. >> Okay. And why was it still being reviewed? >> That was a brand new policy. And so whenever we have a um a death that occurs within 2 years of the effective date of coverage, it becomes a contestable claim, which just means that we will review the application questions and the insured's medical history to be sure that the answers were um accurately answered. >> Okay. So, all you're looking at is once again uh medications and answers to to medical questions on the application. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um because this was one month, >> right? >> Okay. Um did uh ultimately true stage pay on this claim? >> Yes. Um, do you know when and how that went out? >> Yes, it was August 31st, 2022. And we paid that by electronic funds transfer into an account of hers. >> Can we see 725, please? >> Can you tell us what 725 is? This is confirmation of the payment. >> Okay. Um, state would offer states exhibit 7-25. >> Okay. 725 is admitted. >> Okay. So, you you said this one was an electronic funds transfer. Yes. >> As opposed to a check. >> That's right. >> Okay. Now, in this um document here, is there a second page? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, can you keep all right? Um, do you know where this electronic funds transfer? Um, what account that went to? >> I do. Could you go back to the first page? Okay. >> Um to an account ending 2204. >> Okay. Now um it was being paid from 6577 is um can we look at uh states exhibit 710 please? >> 710 please. I'm sorry I'm speaking so low. This um is a u a communication from Corey on that $100,000 claim. >> Yes. This is her claimment statement that we have our beneficiaries complete on all contestable claims. >> Okay. And so, uh the state would offer states exhibit 7-10. >> No objection. State 7-10 is admitted >> on page two. if we could focus in on that. What is uh displayed here? >> This is a voided check that she provided uh providing the information for the checking account that she would like the funds put into. >> Okay. And that's the the account 2204. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and uh finally back to um I think that was uh uh states exhibit 7-23 on uh September 8th. Was there another um communication either email or phone or something from Corey Rich? >> Yes, she emailed us and uh asked if there were any other policies and we've replied that there were the two policies that we paid. >> Okay. I have nothing further for this one. >> Mr. Rolls, please. >> Thank you, Judge. >> Good morning, Miss Coats. Good morning. >> How you doing? >> Good. >> Could you kind of walk through uh when we were on the phone, you kind of explained to me how your company sends out insurance um >> I don't know what to call them. Uh applications uh throughout the year. Could you explain that to the jury, please? Yeah, we um we send out insurance applications in the mail to uh credit union members as well as other individuals now. Um we send it to everyone and um if they get one in the mail, they can fill it out and send it back in. >> How often does that do you guys have a schedule for those to go out every year? >> Uh I'm I'm not sure of the schedule. >> Do they go out more than once? I >> or if you don't know, that's fine. No problem. >> Now, could you explain um a couple of things with regards to the different life insurance policies or term life insurance that have and that were that are issued today? Could you kind of just walk me through those one more time from the earliest to the most recent? You had mentioned like a 2017 one, I believe. >> Yes. So, there was a policy taken out um effective May 12th, 2017 for Eric Richens. >> And who took that out? >> Um we received an application with the assumption that he took that out. >> Okay, perfect. And then which one was the next one? >> The next one is um the most recent which became effective February 4th, 2022. And was that the February 4th one, was that one a part of Miss Richens calling out um and saying, "Hey, can I get life insurance?" Or was this in response to that uh mailer? Uh >> this was in response to the mailer. >> Okay. And the address that you receive, uh the PO box that Mr. Burmeister asked you of, um if we could go back, uh to or if you recall it, um the PO box, you recall that one? >> Yeah, I don't remember the exact We'll pull it up. I believe it was >> the application. >> Yes. If we can publish to the juries while this has been admitted, >> it's not there. One moment. >> Go ahead. >> Perfect. And so, as you can see on the applicant information side as well as the spouse or partner information, um the PO box address is the same. Correct. Yes. >> And it's already prefilled. >> It is. >> Okay. So, that information you received from the credit union? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can we take that down? >> Now, in this case, um, you received a, uh, would you do a script check score? >> Yes. >> And did you do that in this case? >> We did. >> Okay. And when would that have been done? That is done before the application is approved or declined. Okay. >> And then also we do that at the time of claim. >> Perfect. And so when you approved it um you indicated that you received it I think the 3rd. Um and then you it was approved the next day or within the next day. Is that correct? >> Yes. We re we received it on February 3rd, 2022 and um then the script check would have been done and approved on the 4th. >> Okay. And what is there anything in the script check that would have resulted in it not being approved? >> No. >> Okay. Now, if we can go to state 723 and um just uh on the 27th of April, which would be I think the second page. Uh next is that February 27th or April 27th I mean >> okay so on the top there um >> want to show that you're in this room. >> Oh uh sure it's great just to get clarification the first line there Lexus Nexus primary Benny and then it goes before it gets to the second one it goes obituary not found. So, could you walk me through how did you guys receive notice of Mr. Eric's passing? >> Yes. So, twice a year in the state of Utah, we run a match up against the Social Security Deathmur have passed away. And uh he came up in this instance. And what we do is we use Lexus Nexus to uh match and find the beneficiary and make sure that we have the correct person. >> Okay. >> Um and then the obituary at this time when it was um noted was not available online. >> Okay, understood. We could take that down. Now, the PO boxes that we saw, you just received those from the credit union. You don't have any knowledge about who has access to those, right? >> No. >> You assume obviously that you're the individuals you're sending out, the mailer is going to get the uh mailer you sent out, correct? >> Yes. >> And in this case, they did. Correct. >> Yes. >> And it got returned to you. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. And when you receive, we saw lots of applications as well as the um approvals of the money going out. Uh Mr. Burmeister at the beginning uh I believe use the word allegedly. Um filled out by Miss Richens. You assume that whoever sending it to you received it from whichever PO box or mailing address you sent it to. Correct. >> Yes. You have no reason to think it would be anybody else. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And I imagine you guys don't do some sort of expert handwriting certification or handwriting comparison when you receive the application. >> No. >> Okay. When you receive the application, in this case on February 3rd, do you call the individual who um who submitted the application or does it automatically just go into the process of being screened? >> We don't call them. It just goes into the process of of being screened. >> And is that an individual doing that or is that automated? >> It's an individual that inputs the information into the computer and then the computer will run the script check. >> Okay. And then I imagine some sort of AI or something checks if anything pops up and then spits out, yes, we're good to go. >> Yes. >> Okay. And in this case, uh before the uh life insurance was paid out, um you also your office uh sent out requests for medical records. Correct. >> Yes. >> For Mr. rich. >> Yes. >> And you received those back. Correct. >> We did. >> And in there, you were to uh you did highlight anything or identify anything um in terms of prior drug use. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And in this case, marijuana came up. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I have one moment. I think those are all the questions I had. >> Okay. Now, this application that we have here, um, and if we could publish this to the jur, it's been admitted, your honor. >> Is it 7-21? >> Oh, I apologize. Yes, judge. 721. >> What? Go ahead. This application is both for Corey and Eric, correct? >> Yes, >> they're both on it. >> That's right. >> Okay, that's all I have. Thank you, Miss Coats. >> Couple questions. Do you recall um in those medical records u the stated frequency of use of marijuana? >> Yes, it said once or twice per year. >> Okay. And then um when you did your script shirt script shirt search why I'm having trouble with that. It's a check for prescriptions prior to um approving the application. Is that >> yes there? And did you get a um an answer when you did that search? >> The answer was that there were none. >> No prescriptions. >> No prescriptions. >> Thank you. Oh, sorry. No further questions. Thank you. >> Council, may we release this witness? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. That would be the state's request. >> You're free to >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Please watch your step. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Miss Shervin, who's next? >> Christina Miller. >> Miss Miller, if you step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. >> All the way on the stand. >> If you'd stop here briefly. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth subject to the pains and penalties? >> I do. Thank you. Have a seat. >> Please have a seat. >> Missette, please proceed. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Good morning, ma'am. >> Morning. >> If you could state your name and spell your last name, please. >> Christina Miller. M I L L E R. >> Ma'am, what do you do for work? I am a divorce attorney, uh, special master, private guardian, adidam, and just started doing me divorce mediations as well. >> How long have you been a divorce attorney? >> Uh, almost 30 years. >> And in that practice, do you do you do exclusively divorces? >> I do. >> And do you have experience with custody arrangements? >> Uh, extensive. In your practice, how many divorce actions would you say you've been a part of? >> Over 2,000. >> How do you get new clients in your practice in this town? Word of mouth. Uh, typically I haven't really ever advertised. We've done some hometown parades back in the day, but was really more for team building, office building. I don't do I don't advertise on newspaper, radio, or anything like that. >> And I didn't ask you this and I should have, but where um what geographic area do you typically practice in? >> Uh typically Park City, uh Los Angeles County area on occasion. I'll have cases out in the basin. Uh sometimes I have to go down to Salt Lake. Not often, but uh I have some people who won't take no for an answer with leaving Summit in Wasatch County. Understood. And so tell the jury a little bit about your process when you take on a new client, what happens in your office and then eventually how you get involved with that person. >> Um, so we have a I think I'm a bit unusual uh as divorce attorneys go. Uh, we have a very strict process that we have uh developed. We being me and my parallegal Lesie Staples who's been my parallegal we're going on 28 years now uh this March um and we determined pretty early on in our practice that there was a lot of information we needed to receive from clients in order to get a case going. So um I developed um forms uh that we use in every single case. Uh when I'm meeting with client I've developed diagrams um in approximately 2008 is when we really started putting things together so that every client meeting could follow the same pattern, the exact same order for the most part. uh and I could take all of that information, hand it to my parallegal, and she would know as much as I did at the time, uh with regard to some basic information. >> So, if a new client was being referred to you, would they first um set up a meeting with your parillegal via phone? >> Yes. Uh she she has vetted clients um since we started practicing together. Uh if I vetted all clients, I wouldn't get any work done. >> And so after that call with your parallegal, do you meet with the new client? >> If they get past Lesie, then uh yes, she will uh schedule a meeting for me. uh almost every new client um especially if they're at the beginning of a divorce case, she tells them that the meeting can be anywhere between 2 and 4 hours depending on the complexity of their case. Um, like I said, my process I think is pretty unusual because I try and get as much information as the client knows or can give me and I give them back as much information as I can um to make that initial meeting really um impactful uh because it's pretty getting divorced is a very emotional process in addition to a legal process. And so during that uh or I should say after you have that intake meeting, this extensive meeting with a a prospective client, new client or with a new client, how many people actually in your experience proceed from that meeting to filing a divorce? >> Um based upon my 30 years, almost every one of them. Uh there h are a handful that don't. But the process of emotionally, psychologically finally calling a divorce attorney and then the process of showing up for a meeting um is significant uh for most people. uh once they've kind of hit that stage on an emotional psychological standpoint, they're um ready to move forward or ready to prepare to move forward. So, I mean, there have been people I've been meeting with for 10 years who have yet to move forward, but but um uh there are rare it's it's rare that they don't move forward either with me or someone else or or something happens. And in those rare occasions, what are some of the reasons that uh those people give or that you experience that they don't move forward with a divorce? >> Um it's pretty specific to each individual client who's not moving forward, but the uh top reasons are they're concerned about kids. Uh the impact of divorce on kids. uh they're concerned about the age of their kids uh and being too young to be able to speak up about what's happening in in both households. Uh they some people are concerned about their religion uh and what it means for them from a religious standpoint. U some people have stayed together for for quite some time because of health reasons. uh back in the day when it was more difficult to get insurance, you would have some people who had a significant health re health uh issue uh who stayed together until that health issue was resolved. And so you've kind of talked about this extensive first meeting that you have with new clients and part of that it sounds like is information gathering from that person. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Um and you you've talked a little bit about the forms that you go through. are one of those forms directed towards or the topic of that is any children involved? >> Yes. So, um my office staff, I'm sure, gets um uh annoyed at the fact that we have to h I like to have all my forms in a very certain order. And like I said, I'm I'm a visual I'm a visual learner. That's how I teach people about divorce. So, I have the diagrams I have and what I call the blue sheets, which are sheets uh that have all topics on it that I feel like I need from most divorce divorcing people. Um they go in a certain order. So, my packet when somebody comes in to meet with me is I mean it's thick uh and it uh it goes in an order. So, it's first what is divorce and what does this path look like? Um then it's kids and I have forms and um booklets and reading material and the children's bill of rights that we go over. Um and then there's assets and debts and then it's ongoing issues. So if alimony may be a concern, uh we go over a diagram for alimony and uh hit a lot of topics on income expenses. Then there's miscellaneous. Um, and then we go over what does this path look like if you went this way? How do you tell your spouse? How do you prepare uh for ultimately filing or defending? >> I want to turn your attention to Eric Richens. Did you know him? >> I knew him in the sense that I met with him. >> And how how did you come to meet with him? Who referred him to you? uh several people. Uh but the person that reached out to me was his brother-in-law, Clint Benson. He texted me in early October 2020, asked if uh I could meet with his brother-in-law, Eric, uh and told me it was urgent. So, um I explained the process that you have to get through Lesie. Uh, and I believe he contacted the office early October 2020. >> I ultimately met with him October 23rd, 2020. >> Okay. So, Eric went through the process that you've described and ultimately ended up with uh you in that extensive new client meeting that we've been discussing. >> Yes, we met for two and a half hours. While Eric um was with you in in that meeting, did he fill out the typical paperwork? Did he go through that packet that you've been describing? >> Yes, he left the packet at my office. He didn't take it with him. We have a a bound um binder, for lack of a better word, that people take this packet of information home with them and read it. Uh Eric did not. Okay, give me just a moment. >> This is our states um exhibit 8-49. If you could turn to the A task. >> Okay. >> Do you recognize that? >> I do. >> And we've been talking about paperwork that Eric filled out. Is that some of the paperwork that he filled out in your office? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That just so you know under under adverse party uh where it says Corey Richen's Darden in parenthesis, that's my handwriting and it's my handwriting at the bottom in the um kind of grayed out box. >> Okay. And the rest of that is um paperwork that Eric filled out. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's all we need from that one for now. So, I want to talk about the advice that you gave to Eric Richens during this meeting. Did you get an impression about why Eric was in your office? >> I did. >> What was that impression? >> Um, he was there to find out what it would look like in terms of going forward with a divorce. um was there to learn how to protect his finances having just >> I'm going to object all based on your >> Are you asking about what was said or her observation of his physical demeanor? >> I'm asking about effect on the listener, your honor. How his information informed her legal advice? >> Please approach During your meeting with Eric, did you give him legal advice about custody? >> I did. >> Describe um in 2020, what was the presumption when someone was contemplating divorce about how custody arrangements would work? uh at that time uh well let me start with when I first started practicing way way back when it was the old warden and June cleaver thing with regard to custody. Somebody had most of the time and the other person had weekends. Uh there uh has been a wave through the legislature through child psychologists with regard to child psychologist focusing on what's in the best interest of kids and the legislature uh listening to lobbyists. I was on the uh executive committee for the family law section of the Utah bar at the time. So we closely watched what was going on in the legislature. So at that time in 2020, um there had been a statute passed about 5 years previous that finally had an alternative um parent time schedule that was more of a 6040 type schedule. We called it fat weekends, but um that is where courts were going. courts, judges, uh, custody evaluators were all trending towards equal parent time, 6040 parent time, and so forth. So by 2020, um this was October, there were already um rumblings of a new statute being passed that would be an alternative statute for 50/50 parent time that all these statutes have been renumbered in 22, but at that time that was 35.2 or going to be 35.2. But when I met with Eric, uh we had 35.1 which was this that weekend. So um we I talked to him a lot about this is typically what happens with kids and going through a divorce unless uh there is something really that stood out. Um almost all judges were going with more of a joint custody, joint physical custody situation. And so you explained that that potential situation to Eric Richens >> right off. Yes. >> And without saying if he had a ver verbal reaction, could you tell how how he reacted um otherwise? Um yes, we had we had no further discussion about um custody or all of the other things that would go with custody where we would I would typically get into with clients specifics about what holidays look like. Um what a full year calendar looks like. Uh whether there are meaningful holidays in their family, what the right of first refusal looks like. Um, I have on my blue sheets I have it's two pages and I would uh in most cases I fill out both of those pages. >> Did you do that with Eric Richens? >> No, I didn't. >> Was that unusual? >> It is unusual. Um, it is unusual for me not to continue down the path of um a custody conversation. And it typically means that well in every case I think that that I haven't filled that out. It meant the client uh was did not want to think about for for whatever reason did not want to think about the possibility of not seeing their child every day or the possibility of the other side having their child more often than them or an equal amount as them and so forth. up. >> At the conclusion of your intake meeting with Eric Richens, did you give him a to-do list? >> I did. >> And when you give a client a to-do list in in your practice, does that mean that a divorce is imminent? Typically, yes. you know, there um I've been around a a long time uh and this is a small town uh small county and so there are people that will come and meet with me to try and conflict me out of a case and after uh so many years of practicing you learn pretty quickly that that's their intent because they want to take our three or four hour meeting and do 15 minutes and call it good. Um I can typic those people typically some of those people um retain us. Others just want to know the information uh that I have um because like I said I'm trying to teach them all about divorce and and what life looks like after divorce. So >> So giving the to-do list, how is that significant in in your practice? Would you give that to someone who wasn't going to proceed? >> No. No. If I have somebody that comes in and they're either trying to conflict me out or they just really want to talk about what this might look like in 30 years down the road. Um there's no to-do list. I sometimes I won't even fill out the the questionnaires that I have, the question papers, the blue sheets. Um but if they have a to-do list, um people are are in my experience, it is anticipated that they are going to file for a divorce uh at some point in the future. >> And Eric walked out of this meeting with a to-do list from you. >> Uh he did not want to take it with >> Oh, that's right. He didn't leave it, but you gave him a to-do list. Is that right? >> I uh he uh wanted me to correspond through his brother-in-law, Clint. Um, so I emailed the to-do list to Clint. >> Did you refer Eric Richens to anyone after uh or during your meeting with him? >> I did. >> Who did you refer him to? >> Um, he had been had worked in the past with Crystal Bowman Carter uh to do his business planning documents uh and he needed to revoke a um power of attorney. So, uh, he was going back to Crystal for that or I told him to go back to Crystal for that and also, uh, to redo an estate plan. >> Okay. Was it unusual in your practice to refer someone in Eric Richen's position to, um, a lawyer like Crystal Bowman Carter? >> Yes. >> Why is that unusual? Um because most people going through uh a divorce in my experience aren't thinking beyond what that divorce might look like. Uh they're not thinking um about death or estate planning uh and so forth. Uh and most people once you file for divorce, you cannot change any beneficiary and so forth. And so, um, that was not a rule at that time in 2020. It's a rule now, but, uh, it was unusual. I've only referred one other person, uh, in my memory to, uh, change their estate plan while a divorce was either pending or before they filed for divorce. So, Eric went through this initial meeting with you. Did he ever file for divorce with you? >> He didn't. >> Or through you, I suppose. >> No. >> And did you discuss a timeline with him about filing for divorce? >> I did not discuss a timeline with him. Um, as I said, well, I didn't say this, but because divorce is so emotional, um, and there are so many things to unravel, kids and finances and debts and family and external family and extended family, and um, everybody really is on their own timeline. Like I said, I I have a couple clients currently that I've been meeting with them for 10 years off and on. So, um they're not ready to pull the trigger and everybody has a different timeline. >> Thank you. Those are all my questions for you. >> Good morning, Miss Miller. >> Morning. >> My name is Wendy Loots. I am one of Miss Richens attorneys. So I think you stated on direct already, but it wasn't Eric Richens that reached out to set up an initial appointment with your office. Correct. >> That's correct. >> It was his brother-in-law reached out and not just to say, "Hey, I'm referring someone to you." But he reached out to set up the appointment. Correct. >> I don't I don't recall whether I wouldn't have been part of that conversation. And that would have been with Lesie, my parallegal. >> Can we take a look at um CM1 just for the witness? Let me see if that's the right one. Okay, let me just ask another question before we talk about that document. Sure. >> Um two more questions. So you you do remember that it was Mr. Benson that reached out and then you set up a meeting with Eric. Did anyone attend that meeting with Eric or was it just yourself and Mr. Richards? It was my it's my understanding um Eric contacted my parillegal uh to give her a lot of specifics about uh his situation and then the meeting that I had with him was just the two of us. All right. And after that meeting, it was Mr. Benson that reached out and thanked you for meeting with Eric. Correct. Yes. Eric was Eric did not want me to have any uh contact with him via phone or email directly. He wanted everything to go through uh a third party, his brother-in-law. >> Okay, that's what I was getting to. So when you gave Eric the list of documents, you actually sent that to Mr. Benson. >> That's correct. >> And then it was actually Mr. Benson who provided you with the documentation over email. I don't know Eric may have brought some things in person, but anything that came over email was between you and Mr. Benson. Correct. >> Correct. >> And would one reason that a client would ask for that would it be because they weren't ready to let the spouse know that they were considering divorce? Is that fair to say? Yes. All right. And a reason for this and I mean I know you said that most people who come in and go this far do end up filing for divorce but fair to say that some people aren't certain if they're going to file when they come in to see you. Correct. >> Very few. >> It happens though. >> It does happen. Yes. All right. And you testified that you went through custody arrangements with Mr. Richens. Correct. >> Yes. >> And you went through the forms. You went through regarding ch children involvement in divorce. Correct. I might be naming that form wrong, but you said you went through forms about children. >> Children's Bill of Rights. >> The Children's Bill of Rights. >> Yeah. It's not a It is not an official thing in Utah, but um it I have it uh and I give it out on a I'm very colorcoordinated. So, I've colored pens for various things, colored paper for uh the initial client consultation that happens to be on purple paper. Uh and it's taped up all over our office as well, so I can remind clients this is the sun that your kids are the sun and we are all rotating around them. So, let's keep our eye on the price. So, it's just it isn't anything you could enforce in court, but it's something that I like to share with clients. >> Sure. Because clients with small children, that's a huge consideration is what will happen with the children both uh financially and emotionally and who will be living who the children will be living with. Fair. typically not financially but uh emotionally and and who they will be living with and what the possibilities are for sure is a big concern for most people. >> Okay. Finances are a concern which is why you fill out a child support form with clients. Correct. >> Yes. >> And can you pull up CM 5. >> And you filled out a form with Mr. Richens about child support. Correct. >> I did. Yes. And he reported to you at that time his monthly income was $33,333. Correct. >> That based upon what? Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry, I was going to say I we I didn't have documents at the time. So, we were just this is more for uh kicks and giggles of this is what a child support would look like if this were the number. >> Fair. And his child support was going to be it was going to be high. Correct. based on his income. >> Uh yeah. Well, I mean it depends on who you're thinking. In Park City probably most people >> that's true. In my my very small diance with divorce law we were frequently you see people whose whose income is it's quite low. I'm going to say frequently. It some people it's quite low and child support's not very much. >> You can have that for sure. And for some people, this is a lot of people. 33,000 a month is a high income. Correct. >> Uh not for a lot of people that I deal with. Uh but I think on on the whole Yes. >> All right. You're dealing with some more maybe fair to say high more high that didn't come out very well. High-end clients, high-end divorces with more assets. Uh I would say the longer you're in practice, the more difficult your cases become and the um uh and the higher the wage tends to be with regard to divorces. >> Okay. Now, other things you discussed with Eric were assets. >> Yes. >> Fair. And you were made aware that he was a partner in >> Objection, your honor. >> I'm just asking if she's aware. Forgive me. What's the basis of the objection? Sure. >> It's hearsay. >> Okay. >> So, in consulting with Mr. Richens and receiving documents from uh Mr. Clint Benson and maybe from Mr. Richens, you became aware or were you aware that Mr. Richens owned a couple of businesses? >> I became aware of that during my conversation with uh Eric. Did you become aware of that in any way through documents, tax information provided, other documents provided to you by either him or his family? >> I I did not receive any tax returns um from Eric Richens. >> Did you receive anything documentation in terms of his businesses? >> No. Can you mean the business specifically? Yes. >> No. >> Or that the businesses existed. >> Yes. >> Documentation that the businesses existed. >> Correct. >> Okay. And one of the businesses was CNA Stonemasonry. Correct. Do you recall that? >> Yes. >> And Katie, can you just pull up? Good question. The next one, I think it's maybe CM6 or eight. I don't know. Help me out here. page >> here. Mommy. I apologize. Just one moment. Okay. And if you could just plug just for the witness CM7. So you became aware that he owned C part owner partner in C and E stonemasonry. Correct. >> Yes. So this document >> Well, I just that's just to refresh our G. Okay. Okay. Yes. >> And you also became aware through I need you to ask the question to lay foundation for the how about the other businesses as we discussed. >> You can't ask it as a leading question. >> All right. All right. You Let me back up a little bit. You said through documentation you became aware of Mr. Richen's businesses just that they existed >> uh the the masonry business. >> Did you receive documentation that he also was he and Cody Wright were also partners in another business? No, >> you did not receive any documentation about any businesses existing, just the existence of the business. >> Asked an answer, judge. >> Okay. Well, >> overruled. Now we have the whole confirmation. Please go from there, Miss Louis. >> Okay. Did everybody hear the whole >> I think it was two nos in a row, but >> All right, let's see. So now I know Miss Tak asked you and and you said it was true that Mr. Richens did not proceed with divorce in this manner in this case. >> Not correct. >> Prior to his death. No. >> Right. And to your knowledge he did not proceed with divorce with a different attorney. Fair. Correct. >> All right. And you said that you referred him instead to an estate plan. Estate planner. Estate attorney. >> An attorney who does estate planning. Thank you. Sorry. >> Didn't refer him. Instead, I just referred him um to Crystal Bowman Carter to work uh more in tandem. >> All right. And you said you haven't done that very many times, correct? >> Right. But there would be reasons to refer someone to an estate planner. Fair. Just would there be reasons? Yes or no? And then I'll follow up. >> At the end of every divorce case, um I refer every client to I give every client a very long again to-do list um and a closing letter. And at the end of that closing letter, I refer everyone to um or I recommend that everyone see an estate planning attorney to revise their estate planning documents now that they are no longer married. >> Okay. Um in this case, however, that happened earlier in the process than normal. >> Yes. >> All right. And just let me ask you a hypothetical. >> Sure. >> So sometimes people have concerns about their children. I mean, it's a fair reason that people don't get divorced when they have small children because they don't want to break up the family. Fair. >> Yes. >> All right. And if an individual has concerns about providing Well, let let me rephrase that. Um, so hypothetically, someone may have concerns about how their children will be provided for during after a divorce. Fair. >> Provided for >> financially, >> psychologically or financially? >> Well, both, but I'm talking about financially. >> Yes. >> All right. So, one reason someone may go to an estate planner could be to ensure that things were properly set up to provide for their family whether they get divorced or not. Fair. >> Are are you talking about this early on in a in a potential divorce proceeding or just generally? I'm asking hypothetically. Well, generally first. >> Yeah. People generally go uh establish an estate plan to make sure that um they if they have children, their children are taken care of or that if they have assets, their assets are allocated the way they want upon their death. >> Okay. And even though you said it's unusual, it's certainly possible that as someone is going through talking about divorce, they discover that they want to look at this now prior to divorce, they want to set this up. Part one of my question, is that possible? >> I have never um I have never seen that, but any I assume anything is possible. >> Sure. And it's possible that someone may decide instead of a divorce, I need to set up a way to make sure my family's taken care of. Maybe that's the more appropriate thing for me to do at this stage. That's possible. >> I think you're probably comparing apples to oranges. Um when in my experience when someone is ready to move forward with a divorce or or when a divorce has been kind of forced upon them from their other spouse, it is because we have I explain it to clients as two pieces of wet noodle and we drop them on a plate and one is the emotional divorce and one is the legal divorce and my job is to straighten those out and keep them as separated as I can because at touch points when the legal divorce touches the emotional side, the emotional side is in chaos. And when the the emotional side touches the legal side, the legal side is in chaos. And so when you're going through a divorce, that in and of itself is is an apple where people are worried about what their kids will lives will look like. tomorrow. >> Understood? >> Uh or next month. When you are doing estate planning, it is what will my kids' lives look like if I am not here or me and my spouse are not here? Like is grandma going to take them? Is is my sister going to take them? And so they they don't often overlap because people in divorce don't often it in my experience have they don't even really think about their estate plan. It it doesn't come up in our cases uh except for a very small handful of cases. >> I understand it's a very small handful but let me just try and ask once more. >> Sure. It's possible that while going through what a divorce is going to entail, someone can change their mind. Correct. >> Decide not to get a divorce >> and decide not to get a divorce. Correct. And then it is possible that they want to go set up an estate plan. Correct. That can happen. >> I'm sure it can. I I've never seen it happen, but I'm sure it can. >> Okay. You You don't Okay, I'll strike that. All right. But that's what happened here. Mr. Richens decided to see an estate planning a lawyer who worked who specialized in estate plans. Correct. >> What happened was I advised him to seek an estate planning and attorney to help him with what I perceived as his concerns at that time with regard to his finances and his children. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, >> I have nothing further at this time. Thank you, >> Miss Sherman. >> No other questions. Judge, >> may we release this witness? >> Yes. >> M. Lewis, may we release this witness? >> I like your shirt. >> You're free to go. >> Thank you. >> Nice to see you. >> Thank you. >> Am I taking the cup with you? >> Of course. >> And your phone. Leave the binder there if you don't. Oh, is that your binder? >> No, it's you can leave it there. Okay. >> Thank you. Take care. Miss >> question. >> Uh, council, any objection to breaking for lunch? >> Whatever the courtes Lewis. >> No, your honor. >> Okay, folks, please rise for the jury. Uh, during the break, ladies and gentlemen, same instructions. Don't talk about the case. Don't read, watch, or listen to anything about the case. Do not do any research on your devices about the case. Please enjoy your lunch. We'll come back at uh 10 of 1. Thank you very much. folks. Have a seat. Thank you. >> Mr. Floyd, Miss Sherbanac, anything on the record before the lunch break? >> No, your honor. >> Ms. Lewis, Miss Nester, Mr. Roma. >> No, your honor. >> Okay. Uh, we'll be in recess until 12:50. Thank you. >> No, your honor, other than I'd like to clean up this. >> Okay. Blame Mr. Burmister. >> All right. Uh, Ms. Lewis, Ms. Nester, anything on the record before we proceed? >> No, your honor. >> Okay. Uh, give me a preview. Who's the next witness? >> Crystal Bowman Carter. >> Okay. Uh, will you get the jury ready to go and bring them in? Thank you. That was pretty good. Please have a seat. >> All right, please have a seat. >> Miss Shervin act the state's next witness. >> Crystal Bowman Carter. Please. >> Ms. Bowman Carter, if you'd step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> If you could state your name and spell your last name, please. >> Uh, my name is Crystal Bowman Carter. My last name is spelled B O W M- NE C A R T E R. >> What do you do for work? >> I'm an attorney. >> What kind of attorney are you? >> I focus on estate planning and a little bit of business work. >> How long have you been doing estate planning? I have been licensed since 1996 to practice law, but I've been doing estate planning almost exclusively since 2012. >> And do you do that practice here locally? >> Yes, I have an office in Park City. >> Approximately how many estate plans have you drafted in your in your practice? >> 1400,500. >> Did you know Eric Richens? >> Yes. How did you know him? >> I did some work for him. What kind of work did you do for him? >> I I did two projects for him. First, I did a buy sell agreement for him and his partner for their business um Cene Stonemasonry and then I did his estate planning. >> Did you meet with him in person? >> Yes. >> How many times? >> At least four. >> Okay. >> Did you know of Corey Richens? >> I know of her. I've talked to her on the phone once the day that Eric died. I want to talk about the first legal project that you did for Eric Richens. You mentioned that was uh related to his business, CN Stonemasonry. Is that right? >> Correct. When did you complete this agreement or when did you work on this project for him? I was first contacted in June of 2018 um by his financial adviser. We got the ball ball rolling. and I gathered information and then we ended up signing it almost a year later, June 25th, 2019. >> Okay. In general, um, explain to the jury what is a buyell agreement. >> Uh, a buyell agreement is a contract between owners of a company that sets out the terms in advance what will happen when there is a transfer of a business interest, whether it's by sale or because of a um, an owner's disability or their death. Are um buyell agreements in your experience are they common? >> Yes. >> If we could show the witness exhibit 4-2 please apologize. We'll fix that. It's got to be unplugged for me. You should be able to see that. >> I can see it. >> Okay. >> Do you recognize this document? >> Yes. >> And what is it? >> It's the CN Stonemasonry LLC by cell agreement that I prepared. >> Okay. >> I'm going to move to admit 4-2. Ms. Lewis or Mr. R. >> Oh, objection. No objection. Your honor. >> Okay. Uh, states 4-2 is admitted. >> If we could um publish this and move to article three, please. What's contained in article three of this agreement? >> Article 3 provides what happens if one of the partners or owners of the company were to die. >> And essentially, what does it say? and and non lawyer speak. >> Well, the the mandatory cross purchase agreement provides that um if one person d if one of the partners dies, either Eric or or Cody, then the deedent, the person who has died, their estate has to purchase the business interest um from the surviving partner using life insurance. And um is that the life insurance was what was used in in this byell agreement? >> Yeah. So this this byell agreement used four different $1 million life insurance policies. Each of them had each of car oh Cody and Eric had a two $1 million policies on the life of the other. And if one of them were to die, they had to use that money to purchase the interest in CN Stonemasonry from the from the estate. so that the the survivor could continue to control the company and run the company. >> Is that a a pretty common thing in buyell agreements? >> Excuse me. >> Yes, it is. >> I want to move now to talk about the second project that you did for Eric Richens. You mentioned that was a estate planning project. >> Was that uh did that take place in October of 2020? >> Yes, he came to see me. He called my office on October 5th and came to see me on October 13th, 2020. >> And so what was the purpose of that meeting? >> It was to update his estate plan and revoke um a prior power of attorney that had been abused. >> When we're talking about an estate plan, what um what are the main documents that come out of an estate plan? So you the basic estate plan that everyone needs is a will, a durable power of attorney, and a healthcare directive. And sometimes most of the time in my practice, you also need a trust to avoid probate and to protect the beneficiaries of your estate plan from themselves or from others. >> Okay. In preparation for that meeting with Eric Richens, did he fill out some paperwork before and and during that appointment? Yes, all of I have all of my clients fill out an intake worksheet, gather information about their priorities and their assets. He partially filled it out, brought it in with him to the our meeting, and then we filled out the rest together as we discussed what needed to be done. >> And these intake worksheets, how is that something that your firm uses with every client or how does that work? Yeah, my uh either my office manager or my receptionist sends it out to everyone. It's something I can't really function without. Okay. Uh if we could show the witness 4-9, please. And go ahead and scroll through it so she can see the whole thing. >> Do you recognize this? >> Yes. >> And what is this? That's my estate planning worksheet filled out by uh partially by Eric and partially by me. Okay. I'm going to move to admit 4-9. >> No objection. >> 4-9 is admitted. >> Now, if you could take that binder in front of you and turn to tab 9. Is that the same exhibit that we're looking at in 4-9? >> No. >> Okay. Which one is that? >> You're having me look at the healthcare directive. >> Oh, I see. >> We'll come back to that one. I had it labeled wrong. Before um creating Eric Richen's estate plan, did you review a pre-marital agreement? >> I I reviewed it the day before he signed his estate plan. >> Okay. If we could uh 4-1 is the premaral agreement that's already been admitted. If we could u publish that please and go to section one and paragraph five. So this is the document the premarital agreement that you reviewed. Um what does section paragraph 1 section five again the non-awyer version what what does this say? >> So what it says is that um CN Stone Masonry would remain Eric's separate property to dispose of as he wished during his life uh after his marriage to Corey Richens. And if we could go to section two, please. What does this section of the premarital agreement deal with? Again, it deals with Eric's separate party property that u Cene Stonemasonry will remain his soul and separate property even if they co-mingle marital funds. um except uh that if he were to die then his interest in the company would pass to his wife which is Corey in this document. >> Okay. And if we could go to section three, please. And how about this section? What does this um so that that that section addresses um primarily Corey's rights in CN property that she might have under the law at Eric's death. Uh c can I elaborate on that? >> Sure. Okay. Uh, so if you don't have a premarital agreement, then you have rights in your spouse's estate. And when you're a nuclear family with no children from a prior marriage, as they were, uh, that means that if your spouse dies, you get you entitled to at least one-third of the augmented estate. In other words, everything that passes to anyone as a result of your spouse's death. And this paragraph, the the section 3 paragraph 1 says that um Corey's giving up her right to that one/3 as as it concerns CD masonry stone masonry. >> So I want to turn your attention now to that actual meeting that you had with Eric Richens in October of 2020. Um what was he there uh to accomplish? What? Why was he in your office? >> Uh, he was referred to me. I'm I'm not sure if it was from Christina Miller or Brian Freckleton. Um, referred back to me. I had worked with him again to update his estate planning based on some recent uh financial malfeasants and some concerns that he had for his sons that if something were to happen to him, they wouldn't receive or or be cared for financially with with his assets. When meeting with Eric Richens, was there something um unique to you or something that you did for the first time in preparing his estate plan? >> Yeah, there there were a few things that >> what what were those? >> So, one, he didn't want us to communicate with him by email. That happened a little bit later, but because he was worried that Corey would be reading his emails. to he um he left every he wanted to leave everything to his kids if possible and uh at the beginning of the representation I hadn't seen the premarital agreement he wasn't sure if it existed but eventually communicating through his sister as he instructed we received the premarital agreement and saw that it unfortunately did not address all of the property it only addressed CE stone masonry so for that reason the the for the first time ever in my career I had to draft, you know, around that augmented share. So, we provided at a minimum that there would be a share created for Corey consisting of one one-third, you know, the the amount she would be entitled to. Um, and the rest passed directly to his kids. Uh, that and that also applied to tangible personal property. He he said that all his tangible personal property, things you can touch and feel like your furniture, your jewelry, your collections, would pass directly to his sons who were all very young at the time. And that's unusual. It usually passes directly to the spouse. I think there was one other thing, but I'm I'll come to it. >> If it comes to you, let me know. >> Mhm. So, I want to turn your attention now to those estate planning documents that you referenced that you prepare when doing estate plans for most people. Um, and for Eric Richens, did you prepare a living will? >> A a living will, a healthcare directive? >> Yes. >> Yes. And did you also prepare a trust? >> Yes. >> Okay. I want you to take a look at uh exhibit 4-11. We'll put it up on the screen for you. And if you could scroll through it, Scott, do you recognize this? Yes. That's the will I prepared for Eric Richens. And then if we could show the witness 4-12. Do you recognize 4-12? >> Yes. That's the trust I prepared for Eric Richens. Now, in the book you have in front of you, I'm going to ask you to turn to tab K or to tab six. Is that the will that we just saw in the same exhibit? >> Yes. >> And there's a signature um as a part of that document. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And who was that document signed by? Uh, the document was signed by Eric Richens on page eight and his initials appear on every single page of the document. >> And you notorized that document, right? >> I witnessed and notorized the document. Um, if you could turn to tab 10 in that binder. >> Is that the trust document that we just saw? >> Yes, it is. >> And is that document also signed? Yes, it is signed. It's signed by Eric Richens and I notorized it. Okay. >> And that means you saw him sign it in front of you, right? >> Yes. You have to if you're a notary, you're required to be there in person to witness somebody signing something before you can attest to their signature. >> And then also on tab 9, you told us that was the the healthc care directive. Is that right? >> Yes. And is that document signed? >> Yes, it is. And >> similarly, did you see Eric Richen sign that? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. I'm going to move to admit uh 4-11 and 4-12. No objection. >> 4-11 and 4-12 are admitted. >> If we could put up 4-11, please, and publish to the jury, >> 411's on. >> And so this is the the will you described that you prepared uh for Eric Richens. Is that correct? >> Correct. I want to go to section 7.03 please. What what does this section provide for? >> That's the section where Eric expressed his intentions for the disposition of his remains. He wanted to be buried upon his death. Now talk generally about this document and what what kind of legal implications excuse me this document has. So in in the case of a trustbased estate plan which is what we prepared for Eric the will is not usually as important as the trust. All of his uh directions for what he wanted to happen to his assets and the protections he wanted to put in place for his loved ones were contained in the trust. You still have to have a will. It's called a pourover will. It says that if I leave anything out of my trust, if I forget to make a beneficiary designation when I die, give it to my trust to be controlled by the terms of my trust. And then we also I always include either burial, cremation, instructions. If somebody has a preference, sometimes people don't have a preference, then I don't say anything. Um, anything that's governed by a will has to go through a process called probate. Probate, excuse me. That's a court supervised uh process of administering an estate the non-rust assets. So when you draft a tr draft a trustbased estate plan or when you execute a trustbased estate plan the idea is you're avoiding probate you don't need to use the will. It never has to go through probate. The back the will is just a backup document. So now if we could put up 4-12 please for the witness and we can publish this as well. So talk about um in general how a trust works. Okay. So a trust is a contract between and I'm going to use Eric specifically because this one was prepared for him. It's it's it's a contract between the party who drafts it, the party who's going to benefit from it um and the party who's going to administer it. So initially a trust is um a contract between you me myself and I. Uh Eric was the grtor. He created the rules for the trust. Eric was the trustee. That mean he was the manager of the trust um of all the assets that were contained in the trust and had to follow the rules that he set. And then Eric initially was the beneficiary until such time as he became uh until he died. He was the trustee until such time he became permanently incapacitated or died and then somebody else would manage those trust assets. It it's like a box that you have rules for. You put the assets in and those rules control all of the assets in the box. >> So you mentioned that a trust um the trustee was Eric while he was alive and then he chose someone else to be a trustee in the event of his death. Is that correct? >> He did. That would be at article three. >> Okay. Okay. Who did Eric choose as his trustee? >> He chose his sister. Well, he chose a couple of successors. Um, his sister Kitty Rich and Spinson. And then I I want to see who ch he chose this. And then um I'm looking at the wheel still. >> That's okay. You don't have to look at it. If you don't remember, that's okay. No, it was it was uh Katie that he he chose as his first successor trustee and I believe it was Clinton as the second. >> What is a trustee? >> The trustee is the person who has legal title to the assets in the trust and is charged with managing those assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust in the way that the trust says. >> In your experience, was it unusual for someone who was married to not choose their spouse as a trustee? >> Yes. What effect uh did the trust have on Eric Richen's property? >> It while he was alive, he could still do anything he wanted with the the trust assets because it was a revocable trust. Um but the the trust owned his property in in that little box. Um and and the effect was that when he died, it became irrevocable and those assets had to be administered according to the terms of the trust that he set. Scott, if we could go to article 8.01 01 of the trust. Excuse me. Describe for the jury um in layman's terms what what this section of the trust means as it pertains to Corey Richens. >> Okay. Might be a little wordy here. So on >> do your best. >> On Eric's death, this trust became irrevocable and subtrusts were created. a a trust for Corey called the the Q-tip trust that you see here at article 8. And then the next trust is the descendants trust that was for the benefit of the kids. Um because it was a Q-tip trust, the law requires that all of the income generated by the assets held in that share must be distributed to Corey during her lifetime. >> So did the trust provide for Corey Richen's household expenses? Not specifically, but she there's another the guidelines for distribution also provide that she's entitled to also access the principal through the trustee for her health, education, maintenance, and support. So, yes, she was provided for, just not household expenses specifically. >> And you mentioned that a trust is like a box that someone can put their assets into. What were some of the assets um or the assets that went into Eric Richen's trust? So, the easiest thing we did was we he signed an assignment of tangible personal property. So, things things that don't get titled anywhere like um your furniture, your jewelry, those collections by signing that document that transferred those things to the trust. I I prepared a deed for him for the house that he owned in his name and we transferred that asset to his trust. U I think the house was on Willow Court and then we I prepared an assignment of interest in CN masonry that we that he signed uh later on in February after the trust was built. Then we could put the things in it and he signed that in February of uh 2021. Put that in the trust. and also another LLC interest. >> Scott, if we could go back to just the first page of 4-12, please even the the title page for Yeah. So, that document has a date on it. What uh what's the significance of that date? That's the date that Eric signed the trust. And and for titling purposes, we include the date in the name of the trust. >> And so for all intents and purposes, that's the effective date. That's when it it becomes legally in effect. >> That's when it becomes legally binding. Yes. >> If we could show the witness 4-14, please. Stop it. >> And if you could scroll through it so the witness can see the document. >> Do you recognize this document? >> I do. >> Did you prepare it as part of Eric Gretchen's uh estate plan? >> Yes, it's it's the power of attorney that I prepared for him. >> I'll move to admit 4-14. >> No objection. >> 4-14 is admitted. If you could explain, you mentioned that this is a um durable power of attorney. What is a power of attorney? >> It's a document that nominates an agent, somebody that you choose to manage uh your property if you become incapacitated or sometimes immediately. >> And what effect did Eric Richen's um power of attorney have on his estate plan or who who did he choose as his power of attorney? Sure. He chose Katie Richie Spinson. >> Okay. If we could show the witness. I don't want you to look at anything just yet. If we could show the witness 4-13, please. Do you recognize this document? Yes. What is it? >> Uh I'm scrolling through it. It's it's a draft revocation of a prior uh power durable power of attorney. Is this also a document that you prepared for Eric Richens? >> Yes. >> I'm going to move to admit 4-13. >> No objection. >> 413 is admitted. >> If we could publish uh 413 to the jury, please. >> So, this was a document that you drafted as part of Eric Richmond's estate plan. Is that right? >> Yes, I drafted it. And then you can see that there's the prior durable power of attorney is attached as an exhibit. Okay. I didn't draft the prior power of attorney. >> Certainly. Was this document ever recorded? >> This version of the revocation of durable power of attorney was never signed or recorded. >> Do you know why? >> Uh Eric was concerned about the repercussions he would face if he told Corey. It it >> say your honor. >> That was my impression. >> Uh please approach. My apologies, >> the jury. I appreciate your patience. Uh, you cannot consider uh what Eric Richen said to Ms. Bowman Carter. >> And so I'm not sure if your answer was heard by the jury. I won't ask you why, but was this document ever recorded? >> No, this document was never recorded. >> Okay. Now, you mentioned earlier that you were communicating with Eric Richen's uh brother-in-law. I believe >> uh I had communications with Eric Richen's brother-in-law. Yes. >> And you were instructed to only communicate with the brother-in-law. Is that right? I was instructed to communicate with his sister um in a and I was given a I believe it was a shared email account and uh they both responded there. >> Was that unusual in your practice? >> It was the first time anyone had asked me to do that. So yes. >> Okay. I now want to turn your attention to uh the week that Eric Richens died. Um did there come a time when you learned that Eric Richens had died? Yes, I learned that day that he had died, March 4th, 2022. >> And is that when you became aware of it or was that a day later? >> I believe I learned the the day that it happened. >> And how did you learn about Eric Richen's death? >> Clint Benson called me and told me that he had died. >> And did you also receive a call from a sheriff's deputy that day? Yet later that day, I received a phone call from somebody who'd identified themselves as the sheriff deputy and as who asked me to talk to Corey. And did you talk to Corey on the phone that day? >> Yes. >> What did you tell her? >> Apparently, she was upset about the house and uh I was asked to explain that there was an estate plan in place and that the house belonged to the trust. And that's what I told her. >> When you were explaining to Corey Richens that the house belonged in the trust, how did she react? >> Oh, not positively. She was livid. Um, she was upset and she said, "What is wrong with you people?" and handed the phone back to the officer. of leave. >> When having this conversation with Corey Richens, was was it your impression that she was unaware of the estate plan? >> Subject to speculation, your honor, >> Little Foundation. >> What could you tell from your conversation with Corey Richens about her knowledge regarding what would happen with the house? She told me that the house belong well I she told me the house belonged to her. She thought the house was hid and obviously if she thought that then she was unaware of the estate plan and that the trust owned the house. >> When were were you contacted by an attorney representing Corey Richens? >> Yeah, a bankruptcy attorney reached out to me. Jackson, your honor, can we approach? Sure. So, you mentioned that you received an email from an attorney representing Corey Richens. Is that right? >> I I received an email on March 8th from an attorney that said he represented Corey Richens. >> Okay. What um And so, sorry, I missed the date that you said he contacted you on March 8th. Is that >> March 8th, 2022? >> What was the general nature of that email? uh just to tell me that he represented her and to ask that we give her time to um grieve. Don't don't act too quickly. So that she could attend to his services and believe that was it. >> So he he was contacting you in reference to uh the estate plan. Is that right? >> Possibly. I don't I'd have to look at the email, but I don't even know if he referenced the estate plan. >> He was talking about um the house that was in the estate plan. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Did you after that email exchange on Marth 8 on March 8th, did you provide any documents to Mr. Nate? >> Yeah, it was attorney Nate and I did provide him with a full copy of the estate plan. Um, I pointed out several things including that the will um called for burial and asked >> Yeah, go ahead. You can finish. >> And asked that, you know, and because I had become aware that Cory was seeking to have his body cremated. So, I wanted to make sure and nonresponsive. Uh well taking him in reverse order overruled and it's unclear so I'll sustain it lays some more foundation. >> Sure. So part one of the documents that you provided to Mr. Nate was the will. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And one of the reasons you provided him the will was so that he was aware of Eric Richen's wishes as it concerned his burial. >> Yes. Did you open probate on Eric Richen's estate? >> Yes. Um, when did that happen? >> March 14th of 2022. >> Only 10 days after 10 days after Derek's death. >> In your experience, is that uh first I'll ask two questions about opening probate. Was that a typical time frame for those events to happen? >> No, that wasn't a typical time frame. >> Uh, what do you mean by that? >> Well, a couple of reasons. Usually, people need to get through the services and grieve a little bit. If if the property is secure, there's no reason to open probate right away. But in this case, Eric had a fully funded trust. I never would have opened probate if we were just administering the trust. That's the whole reason you have a trust is to avoid having to go to court, make everything public. >> And so when you're saying the time frame was not typical, it was quicker than usual. Is that fair? >> Yes, it was much quicker than usual. And with a trust, I I just wouldn't have opened probate. I if at all, I would have opened probate a year after the death after creditors claims have been cut off. And so you opened probate quickly because there was some urgency in your view. >> Yes. Um Eric had can can I explain why lay some foundation for how she knows whatever she's about to say? >> Well, sure. Did you um Can we approach? I don't want to >> M sure. Please proceed. >> Without telling us any specific statements or what anybody said, why did you open probate so quickly? I needed to get um the nominated personal representative in place so that she Katie Richens Benson would have the ability to manage the probate estate and make and and make sure that Eric's wishes as expressed in his will were followed. Thank you. And I I neglected to check. Have I admitted exhibit 4-14? I know I talked about it with this witness. Did we? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong one. It wasn't there. >> I just didn't have a note there, so I wanted to make sure I admitted it. >> Mester is correct. >> Those are all my questions. Thank you. >> Mester, please. >> Thank you, honor. >> Good afternoon, Miss Bowman Carter. Good afternoon. >> My name is Kathy Nester. I'm one of the attorneys representing Corey Richens today. All right. So, I want to talk with you about the um revocation document that you talked about with Miss Shervinac. Um could we please bring up 4-13? It's been admitted, your honor. Okay, >> you can see that there's no >> I can see it. >> Okay, go ahead. >> And can we scroll down to the beginning of or actually the very bottom of it uh the date of the original one that they were contemplating revoking. And just to refresh, you mentioned on direct, this was actually never done. You actually never did revoke this power of attorney. Correct. Incorrect. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I may may have misunderstood you. I thought you said that you all did ended up not revoking it. >> No, I said we didn't sign this document. >> You didn't sign it. >> Mhm. >> So, I know what you're getting at. So, in your durable power of attorney, you mentioned revoking all previous attorney uh powers of attorney. Correct. >> That's not what I was getting at, but that's correct. >> Okay. But this particular document never got signed or filed or anything. No, another revocation got signed apart from the durable power of attorney that he signed. >> Okay. And the date on this document that you all were contemplating revoking but didn't ever sign this document was May the 8th of 2013. Is that right? That's what this document says. So this is the power of attorney that all the parties were contemplating saying this doesn't you can't use this anymore right from now on. This power of attorney was revoked. Yes. I'm trying to not use lawyer words. I'm trying to use like normal words just so to make sure we're clear. So revoke just means we can't use it anymore. Right. >> Right. It's taken back. It's it's null and void. >> Perfect. Thank you. That's what I was getting at. So to your understanding, this power of attorney had not there had been no prior revocation filed on this power of attorney. Other words, it had been in place since May of 2013, right? But circumstances changed and he wanted to revoke it. >> Sure, you can. Anybody can revoke a power of attorney anytime they want. Right. >> Correct. >> But he hadn't done that up until now till he saw you in 2020. >> That is my understanding. He he may have gone to someone else, but this the first time I learned of it. >> Okay. Thank you. You can take that down. Um, do you remember being interviewed by law enforcement um within about a year or so after Eric passed? Yes. Okay. And when you were interviewed by law enforcement, do you recall telling them that it stuck out in your mind how kind Eric was about Corey using that power of attorney in a way that he didn't like? Right. Do you remember that? >> Josh, pause for your sake. >> That's her own statement, your honor. >> Which is why it's a problem that it's coming in through you. Let's I'll I'll lay a little more foundation. >> Um, was it your understanding that the goal of revoking this power of attorney that had existed before was that Corey was couldn't be trusted to utilize it? Well, >> yes. And why couldn't she be trusted to utilize it? Well, >> because she had stolen 200 she had misused it to take $250,000 out in his name and he did not like that. Totally fair. And isn't it also true that it was your understanding that um Corey's business acumen or business skills were less than fantastic because she was young and inexperienced. >> I have no personal knowledge about Cory's business acumen and skills. >> Did you make that statement to the prior in your prior interview to the police? I repeated what Eric told me about her business acumen and skills. >> Okay. And what was your understanding of that? >> I had no understanding of her business acumen and skills. >> But what did you tell the police? >> I told the police what Eric told me, >> which was what? >> That she was misusing his the power of attorney. that I I wanted to to include stronger language in his estate plan, more protective. I was surprised that he was willing to he said that she's the mother of my children. I know that she made mistakes. She needs some more experience. For now, I'm going to do what I'm doing. >> Great. Thank you. Was there also when you decided to add the house to the trust, did you do any investigation into whether Mrs. Richens had been contributing to the mortgage throughout the marriage? >> I did not. It wasn't relevant. >> Okay. When you said that all of Mr. Richen's personal property was poured into the trust. Did you do any investigation into whose funds purchased all that personal property? >> It wouldn't matter if it was gifts, but no, I didn't. >> So, for example, the furniture in the living room, do you know whether Corey purchased it with her money or Aaron purchased it with his money or it was joint money? Do you even know? >> No. How could I know? >> Okay. And you made no effort to find out. The assignment that Eric signed transferred his personal property, >> right? If >> So, you took his word for what was his personal property as opposed to what was hers? >> I didn't have to take his word. He was only transferring what was his personal property. >> Okay. And did he give you an inventory of what that personal property was? >> No. >> Okay. So, you didn't know? >> Well, there's a worksheet and he listed some things like his guns. Um, but he didn't prepare a very specific inventory. I just prepared an assignment that he signed transferring all of his personal property to his trust as is customary. So that would later that would ultimately be decided probably by the trustee whether when they she was trying to divvy up the proceedings as required under the trust whether that couch was bought by Corey or that couch was bought by Eric. >> That's likely. >> And you didn't give any guidance to that in the trust the document itself. What are you asking? >> Was it Was it listed in the trust? Each and every item that was considered Eric's personal property? >> No, it was just all of my household furnishings in effect. >> Okay. You said all the household furnishings were his personal property. >> No, I said all of my household furnishings in effects, meaning all of Eric's household furnishings in effects. >> Gotcha. Okay. Um, you also in your the trust documents that you drafted, it's pretty common that you do with something called a statement of intent, right? >> No, it's not common at all. >> So, it was unusual that you did that. >> Yes. >> Katie, can you pull up 412, page um 1-2, section 103? This is in your honor. If we could publish that, there you go. And can you blow up the statement of my intent? So this is the part you said is unusual for you to do. >> I mean it's not unusual to you trusts will have them, but for me I I typically don't include one unless there's a reason. >> So did you have a reason for including this? >> Yes. Okay. And I assume it's something the client wanted. >> Yes. Okay. And the language in here states that the intent of the trust is to provide for both Mrs. Richens and the children throughout their lifetime. Right. >> Right. We revised that the day of signing. >> Great. You can take that down. Did there come a time you mentioned that it was your understanding that Mr. Riches did not want you to communicate with him directly, right? >> By email directly. >> Right. And is that because he and his wife shared an email account? >> I I don't know. I It didn't It was E- Richens, I think. I don't think they shared an email account. I don't know. >> Okay. So, you just don't know. >> It was It was not because they shared an email. What he told me was not because they shared an email account. It was because she snooped in his email. >> Okay. That's so she had access to his email at least. >> I don't know. That's what he told me. >> Okay. And did you were you aware at that time that he was consulting a divorce attorney? Yes. All right. So when you previously said it's very unusual to not put your spouse as a trustee if the individual was consider excuse me considering divorce that wouldn't be unusual to put someone other than your spouse would it? >> No that wouldn't be unusual. >> Okay. And was there a time where you accidentally did notify Corey of something? >> Yes. >> Explain that, please. >> Uh Corey Richens, Kay Richens, and Katie Richens Benson. Very similar names. >> Sure. >> I after I spoke to Corey on the phone, I sent an email to Katie, I thought, which actually got sent to Corey. Okay. And in that email, do you remember the date of that? >> It was probably March 4th, the same day that I talked to It may have been March 5th, but I think it was March 4th, 2022. Right. The same day I talked to Corey. And just talking about that conversation you had with Corey. So, this is less than 48 hours after her husband has died, right? Give or take. >> Yes. And your purpose of your conversation, was that Katie Benson Richen's request? >> No, it was the police's request. >> Okay. And the what you told her before she got very, very upset was the house that you live in is not yours. I told her that she did not have title to the house. >> Okay. So basically, you're telling a new widow that she's also about to be homeless? >> No, not at all. That's ridiculous. >> Did you tell her there was any other homes provided for her by Eric waiting on her somewhere? >> No, but I told her that he had uh that she would not be kicked out of the house, that she could continue to live there, and that he had provided for her in his estate plan. >> Okay. And if I understand your previous testimony correctly, you never actually asked her what did you know about all this before he passed, did you? >> No. >> Right. So, you don't know whether Corey Richens knew there was a trust before he died? >> It was apparent that she didn't. >> I'm sorry. Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether Corey Richens knew before his death that there was a trust in place? >> No, I have no personal knowledge of that. >> Okay. I want to talk about the intake form that um Miss Shermanac went over with you. If we could please pull up 49. It's also been admitted, your honor. And if we could scroll forward till we get to the page where he lists his assets. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. There. Your honor. Can we Sorry. Can we blow this up just a little bit? That top half so we can see it. All right. So, this is the section where you ask the client to list I guess what they're worth, right? Yeah. That that is a summary of the assets listed on previous pages. Okay. And um Mr. Richens it looks like wasn't sure about stocks and bonds, life insurance and retirement. And he smite directed you to ask Freckleton, right? That that's pretty common. Clients don't want to fill everything out. And he knew we had Brian Freckleton had worked with me before on the buyell agreement. He said talk to him about that stuff. But he does say that they had $100,000 in bank and savings accounts at the time. That's what this document says. And $65,000 in vehicles at the time. Well, you said they he he says he >> Okay. $65,000 in vehicles. That's what this document says. And $30,000 in furniture and personal items. That's what this document says. And a million dollar in real property. Yes, that's what this document says. >> And it looks like he's valuing his business, at least his share of the business, at about $3 million. That was that's what this document says, >> right? And that he had some anticipated inheritance, not a ton, but some, right? That's what this document says. >> So, his best estimate of his net worth was about $4.6 $6 million if you don't include stocks and bonds, life insurance, and retirement plans. >> That's what this document says, >> right? So, as long as he's alive, I believe you said that he could do whatever he wanted with any of the money that was assigned into the trust, right? >> Yes. >> Cuz it's revokable. >> Yes. >> So, as long as he's alive, he can share any of this money that he wants with his wife. He can make gifts to whoever he wants. and he can share 100% half% whatever he wants as far as his monthly income right with his wife. >> I'm I'm not sure what so nothing about a revocable trust prohibits him from if he's making $33,000 a month giving his wife half of that or more. He >> he can do whatever he wants with his property. that if he lived to be 70, he could give her as much as he wanted until he's 70, right? No matter what the trust says. Like I said, he can do whatever he wants with his property. >> But the minute he dies, Katie Richens Benson decides how much money, if any, Cory Richens gets, right? The successor trustee, who happens to be Katie Richens Benson, has to follow the rules of the trust set by the grtor, who is Eric. So, no, Katie can't do whatever she wants with the money. She has to follow the rules of the trust. >> Totally fair. And you're right. >> We're set by Eric Richens. >> But she's the one who will decide from the moment he dies forward whether, if how much Cory gets any of Eric's money. >> Yes, that's what Eric wanted. And if hypothetically Corey Richens knew about the existence of the trust, she would know that as well. >> I don't know what Corey would know from reading the trust. But that's what the trust says in plain black and white in the paper, right? Can you repeat what you're saying the trust says? Yep. That >> for a moment. Go ahead, M sure. >> Your honor, calls for speculation. She does that. She can't answer as to what Cory >> the trust, if someone had a copy of it, lays clearly out what we've just discussed that as long as Eric's alive, he can do whatever he wants with his money. Once he dies, it's up to Katie. Like I said already, it's not completely up to Katie. She's the trustee of the trust. She has legal title to those assets and she has to follow the rules of the trust, which say she has to give Corey certain income that Corey can come to her and ask for distributions of principle for health, education, maintenance, and support. This trust was primarily to protect the boys. Did you ever advise Katie in her role as trustee since you drafted the trust papers? Did you ever give her any explanation about her duties or talk to her about what she could and couldn't do? >> That's attorney client privilege. >> She's your client? >> She was my client after Eric's death for a period of time. >> As of when was she your client? >> As of Eric's death? >> She's still your client? >> No. >> How much have you been paid by Katie Rich and Spinson? >> I waved my fees. >> You waved your fees. So, you're her lawyer for free? >> I'm not her lawyer anymore. >> Okay. How long were you her lawyer? >> I was her lawyer through I think I formally withdrew in June. She needed a firm that had more capacity than I had with just me. >> When you open the probate, were you then responsible for any pleadings that came in and out of the probate matter? >> Would you have gotten copies of them? >> I I opened probate. I drafted the probate pleadings. >> Right. So if for example Corey had asked Katie after Eric's death, can you please pay the mortgage for the next year out of the trust that that request would have gone through the probate, right? >> No. >> Okay. So how would it have gone? >> Katie was the ad the trustee of the trust. That is not subject to probate. >> Okay. So do you have any personal knowledge whether Katie I'm sorry whether Corey Richens ever asked Katie Richens for any distributions? Do you have any personal knowledge? >> For one second, your objection, Miss Sherman, >> calls for hearsay Cory's statements to Katie. >> Yeah, only if it's uh So, would you exclude Corey's statements, but reask your question >> without saying anything Corey ever said, which by the way, it sounds like you didn't communicate with Corey anyway. But were you aware in your role as the person assisting the trustee whether any request for any money ever came to that trust in the year after Eric died from Corey Richens? >> I need you to be more specific to make sure you're not seeking hearsay. Break it down >> in writing or legally or formal request to the trustee. >> What in writing or legally? requests for distributions to Corey, to her boys, anything from the trust? >> I have no personal knowledge of that. >> Okay. You also mentioned that you were talking to a lawyer that you knew to be a bankruptcy lawyer, right, when he called you about Corey shortly after the death. >> Yeah. I was surprised at how quickly he got in touch with me and I and some of his claims about the way the property was titled. So, I looked him up to see if he even knew anything about estate planning. >> But you're certainly not telling this jury that he was representing Cory in a bankruptcy, right? >> No, I just was curious. So, I looked him up to see that he it made more sense when I found out he was in a bankruptcy attorney. >> But he wasn't calling you about a bankruptcy matter. He was calling you about please give Corey some time to grieve before anything goes on with the house. >> He never called me. I mean he called me later but in the email he um he asked give her please don't move forward on the probate until she's had time to grieve. >> Okay. >> He didn't mention a bankruptcy. >> All right. I just want to make sure that they're not the jury doesn't think there was a bankruptcy matter going on. There wasn't to your knowledge. Correct. >> I have no idea. >> Okay. And then you also said that you told this lawyer that Eric wished to be buried. Is that right? >> That's what his will said. And I I did say that in a subsequent email. >> And in fact, Eric was buried. Correct. >> I believe so. Right. >> Did you go to the funeral? >> No, I didn't. >> Are you still close with his sister? >> No, I I've never been close with his sister. >> Okay. Well, you were her lawyer. That doesn't mean I'm close to her. It was a professional relationship. >> Okay. How often did you talk to her? >> When when you were her lawyer as needed? Daily, weekly, monthly? I think it was daily at first. Okay. Courts indulges for just one minute, your honor. >> Of course. Thank you, ma'am. Your honor, please send her the witness back to the state. >> Anything further, Miss Sheret? >> No, your honor. >> May we release Ms. Bowman Carter? >> Yes, your honor. >> You're free to go. Take care. Council, >> your honor, if they can call a witness now, that direct will probably be an hour. >> Why don't we take a restroom break now so we don't break up direct? Please rise for the jury. Folks, have a seat, please. Uh, just checking the next witness is >> Robert Gman. >> Okay. And then anything on the record before we take a break from the state? >> No. Yeah. >> From the defense. >> Okay. Why don't we come back at 210, please? Courts and reasons >> before we invite them in. >> No, your honor, >> Miss Lewis. >> Okay. We're ready for them when they are. Will you bump this ostra? Will you bump this ostello for me? Folks, please have a seat as you come in. Please have a seat. >> Mr. Bledworth, the state's next witness, please. Your honor, the state calls Robert Josh Grossman. Mr. Grossman, good afternoon. If you'd step in front of Britney, we'll get you sworn in. >> You please raise your right hand. >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? Sir, do you swear to tell the whole truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes or no? >> I won't lie. >> In this setting, I assume >> stand right there for a moment if you don't mind. Can I invite you folks to take a walk for a moment, please rise for the jury? Just pause for a moment. Have a seat for me if you don't mind. >> Mr. Grossman, do you understand the difference between what's true and what's not true? >> I do. >> Do you promise under the pains and penalties of perjury to tell the truth when you're asked questions? >> Absolutely. >> Anything further, Mr. Bworth? >> No, your honor. >> Miss Lewis, your honor. >> Okay. Would you bring the jury back in? your honor. An instruction that he's taken enough. >> I'll uh I'll make it clear so that you're not surprised. I'll just ask you to confirm that you've sworn to tell the truth. Yes, sir. Okay. Look good. Folks, please have a seat as you come in. Please have a seat. Mr. Gman, just to confirm, uh, you have sworn an oath to tell the truth, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Very good, sir. Mr. Bworth, please proceed. >> Thank you, your honor. What, sir, is your name? Robert Joshua Gman. >> Sir, do you know Corey Richards? >> I do. >> How do you know her? >> Uh, I've so I've known her for I don't know a decade probably at this point. Um, we met in South Carolina. She was flipping a house and I answered and a help wanted ad. Then did you come to know her in South Carolina through helping her flip homes? >> I did. >> Did there come a time you moved to Utah? >> Yes. >> When sir was that? >> It was just as COVID was kicking off. So 2020 I believe early in the year. And why did you move to Utah? >> To work with her, help her flip houses. >> And when you moved to Utah, where did you stay? >> Initially, I stayed at a flip that she had acquired in Heber. I had my dog with me. We do livein flips, me and the dog. Yeah. other than accommodations. Did she pay you for your services? >> There I mean we didn't have any contractual agreement, you know. I she she took care of me, you know. I I lived for free. She did she gave me money whenever I needed it. I just, you know, I liked her. So I'd worked for free. Not that not that she didn't, you know, pay me. She did from time to time in in lump sums. And >> did she also give you a truck? >> Yes, she bought me a truck. Two of them. Bought me one, traded in, got another one at one point. Didn't trade it in, gave it to her mother. Yeah. Did sir there come a time when your relationship turned romantic? >> Yes. >> About when? >> Same same time just before driving to Utah. to write about the outset of CO, >> right? >> Scott, can I get exhibit 3-1, please? >> The witness has. >> Thank you, your honor. It's been admitted. Can we publish it? Scott, can you zoom in on the top portion? Thank you. Mr. Gman, do you do you recognize that document before you? I mean, I know I know what it's alluding to. >> I know of it. Yes, sir. >> And did you know about a trip planned to the secret St. Martins's Resort? >> Yes. So, I want to take a take a look at the passenger name line. There's some initials there. Um, RG with a birth date of 9 December 1982 and a gender of male. Um, sir, are those your initials? >> Yes. >> Is that your birthday? >> Yes. >> Perhaps obviously. >> Yes, definitely. >> Thank you. Did you and Corey Richens at some point plan to go on this trip? >> Yeah. Yeah. She I think that was a birthday present. I remember seeing a text or something. It was she sent it to me. We didn't we didn't discuss we didn't discuss it much, but it was there. Thank you, Scott. During that time that you were romantically involved with Miss Richens, did you love her? >> Yes. >> During that time, did you feel that she loved you? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I have a tendency of going head over heels though, probably more than most. So, you know, I think she did. >> Did you exchange text messages with Corey Richens? >> Yes. From the time you moved to Utah, >> about how often? >> Daily, unless she was mad at me or vice versa. >> What topics on those messages did you discuss? >> Same thing you would discuss with your best friend. Uh, plus house flipping stuff. life. >> Do you discuss her children? >> Yes. >> Sir, I'm going to show you now some of some text messages between you, you and Miss Richens. >> Okay. >> Uh they're the same ones I believe we've looked at before. I'm going to ask you if you've recognized them. If you can recognize them right away, that's fine. If you would like me to scroll down through them again, I'm I'm happy to do that. Okay. >> Okay. >> Scott, can I get exhibit 2-13 Delta, please? Um, you just kind of scroll through the whole string without Those are pretty small. If you need people to zoom in, you can ask, sir. >> Is that good enough to for you to identify them or do you want to zoom in and step through them? >> I mean, if you could zoom in a hair, that that wouldn't hurt. Okay. >> Was I supposed to be reading them at that clip? >> No, I just right there. >> What I'm going to ask you, the question for you, sir, is >> do you recognize this as a as a text exchange that you had with Miss Richens? >> I got you. And I do for this one. >> Okay. Then the state moves to admit uh 2-13D. >> Could you just Scott, could you just scroll down and let me take a look at everything that's in there real quick? Keep going. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. Is that it? >> Oh my gosh. Never mind. Okay. Um, >> council, take the time you need. >> What I'm going to pull it up. Let me just pull it up real quick. I don't believe I have any objection. to that one. I'm going to say no. Judge >> states 2-13D is admitted. >> Your honor, um, >> you'll let me know when you want to publish. >> Moves to publish. Yeah. And then >> Scott, if we could just walk through them with the jury, please. Wow. 62. Wow. I think Thank you, Scott. Um, that test was from December the 18th, 2021. >> I meant to go in chronological order. That was all one day. >> Sir, we're going to uh go back in time to November the 29th, 2021. >> Scott, can I get 2-12 Delta? Can we scroll that through that for Mr. Grossman and council, please? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Sir, is that um an accurate depiction of a text exchange between you and Corey Richens on November the 29th, 2021? Yes, >> your honor. The state moves to admit 2-12 delta. >> No objection. >> States 2-12D is admitted. And your honor, publish it, please. You're on. You're on. >> Yes, sir. Water. >> Yeah. Yeah, no problem. Grab a glass and there's cold water in there for you. You just put it back up. Thank you, Scott. >> Scott, can I get 2-18 Delta, please? You please scroll through for Mr. Grossman on council. Sir, is that an accurate depiction of a January 9th, 2022 text exchange between you and Corey Richards? I mean, I I think so. Uh, I didn't necessarily recognize some of it. I saw the word dopick in there. That doesn't I don't know that that's Can you scroll back up to that one? >> That just doesn't seem like a topic of conversation of ours, but or it doesn't seem like a word I recall. Other than that word, does it appear to be an accurate depiction? >> Oh, it's Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah, it's a TV show. Yeah. >> Your honor, the state moves 2-18D into evidence. >> No objection. >> States 2-18D is admitted. Had >> to publish, your honor. >> There you go. I just want Thank you, Scott. Can I get T-27 Delta, please? Please scroll through it for Mr. Grossman and councel. Sir, is that an accurate depiction of a February the 14th, 2022 tax exchange between you and Miss Richard? It is >> your honor. State moves 2-27D into evidence >> and to publish. >> No objection. >> 227D is admitted. One moment. There you are. Oh. Appreciate you, man. Scott, can I get 2-29D, please? What is this? Look at this as they go through. >> Okay. Okay. >> You go back to the beginning. Scott Your honor, I'm sorry. Seems we're frozen up again. >> No problem. Let's fix it. >> One second, Mr. Gman. The witness has the document. Sir, did you recognize that as a February the 15th um accurate depiction of a text exchange between you and Corey Richards? >> Yes, >> your honor. The state moves 2-29D into evidence. >> No objection. 2-29D is admitted. Oh man. Scott, can you please bring up 2-31D? We have two hours. Sorry. >> Sir, is that an accurate >> depiction? Yes. >> February 19th text message. >> Yes, sir. >> Your honor, the state moves 20, sorry, 2-31D into evidence. >> No objection. >> 2-31D is admitted. Oh man. Sit back for a second. Sir, would you like to take a break? >> Mr. Grossman, love with me. Do you need a minute or two? >> I don't know what I need, man. >> Let's just start with that. Why don't we take a five pause for a moment, if you don't mind? Uh, let's take a 5m minute break. Please, please rise for the jury. I'm sorry. There's no Please have a seat. Uh, Mr. Grossman. >> Yes. Going to let you take a few minutes, collect yourself. You're welcome to walk around the lobby. You are welcome to use the restroom. Do not speak to anyone. All right. >> Nobody in here. >> Nobody in here. And in fact, I'm going to ask everybody that's in here to just sit tight for 5 minutes so we don't have any ambiguity about whether anybody is interacting with Mr. Gman while he just takes a short break. Feel free to stretch your legs. There are going to be more questions. I just need you to be present, able to listen. >> Right? >> It's fine. Take 5 minutes. Don't talk to anybody. Okay. >> Okay. >> You go stretch your legs for a sec. >> I feel like I got something I want to say. Yeah, but you're going to have to wait and just answer questions that are asked. Okay. >> Okay. I'm ready though. >> You sure? >> As you sure you don't want to stretch your legs? >> That ain't the legs that I need to stretch. >> I'm I mean >> Well, I'm going to sit here for a minute and just answer an email and take a deep breath. Okay, >> I'm cool with that. >> All right. After you take five breaths, will you light uh line the jury back up? Thank you. It's important that you just wait for the question asked. >> Okay, that's I appreciate that, sir. >> For all that in case I just bring in Bowen, whenever they're lined up, you can bring. Thank you, sir. Do you have folks. Please have a seat. Thank you. All right, have a seat. Mr. Gman, you're still under oath. >> Okay, >> very good. Mr. Bloodworth, your next question, please. >> Thank you, your your honor. Um, Scott, can I get 2-32D, please? Just glance as these as days go by. Mr. Bworth will have a question for you. >> Okay. Two. Which one are we? Yes, she did. Sir, is this an accurate depiction of a February 23rd, 2022 text exchange between you and Miss Richens. >> Yes, >> your honor. The state moves to admit and publish 2-32D. >> Objection. >> 2-32D is admitted. Oh my god. Scott, can we get 2-36D, please? Sir, do you recognize that as a um accurate depiction of a March 2nd, 2022 text exchange between you and Miss Richens? >> Yes. >> Your honor, state moves to admit and publish 2-36D. >> No objection. >> 2-36D is admitted. Sound. Scott 2-38D, please. Sir, do you recognize this as an accurate depiction of a March 2nd, 2022 text exchange between you and Miss Rich? >> I do. I mean, obviously I'm I'm not going to remember every word in there, but I'm not, you know, I'm not saying it's not the these are our texts, period. >> Whether I whether I remember them all or not, you know, but yeah, >> your honor, the state moves to admit and publish 2-38D. >> No objection. >> 2-38D is admitted. Scott, can you please split screen 2-39D1 and 2-39D2? Yeah. >> 39. Scott, can you go to just the 2-39P? Scroll through that. Oh boy. Let's see. Sir, is that an accurate depiction of a March 3rd and a March 4th, 2022 text exchange between you and Miss Richards? Yes, >> your honor. The state moves 2-39 D into evidence. >> No objection. >> 2-39D is admitted. >> Gentlemen, >> just pause for a minute. Okay. Okay. Scott, can you bring up the gift attached to that? Sir, is that an accurate uh moving dete depiction of the gift thumbnail that was attached? >> Was attached to what? >> The email we just looked at. >> That seems like pretty I mean I don't know who sent that. Me. We can go back to that. Scott, can you take us back to 2-39, >> sir? Can you see that? >> I see that. >> Maybe I Maybe I'm just mixed up on the times or dates or something. >> Sure. I just >> if you bring up the gift >> if I sent that after reading what I just read on here then I was >> you know >> just wait for the next question please. >> Okay. >> Was that is that the moving version of the thumbnail that was attached? >> Right. >> Your honor the state uh moves this in. What I'd like to do just I'm not sure how they got separated. I would like to mark the email, sorry, the text exchange is 2-39D1, the associated GIF as 2-39 D2. >> No objection, but could we clarify the gift was sent on March 3rd. Those texts cover both March 3rd and March 4th. >> The gift was sent, it's in the text, it was sent at 7:22 p.m. March the 3rd, 2022. >> Okay. Uh 2-39D1 and D2 are admitted. Uh what order would you like to publish things in? >> Your honor, um let's please publish D1 and then we'll publish D2 at the end. >> Okay, Scott, let me know when you're ready. >> Yeah, we we've walked through D1. We apologies. So, it's just publishing D2. >> Okay. All right. Do you want to show the forgive me do you want to show the message at the end to provide context for the thumbnail or do you want to go directly to D2? >> Hey what Scott, give me D1 on the left, D2 on the right, thumbnail portion of D1 on the left. >> One moment. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Scott. Can I get 2-49D? Sir, is that an accurate depiction of a March 20th, 2022 text exchange between you and Miss Richens? >> I believe so. >> Your honor, state moves to admit and publish 2-49D. >> No objection. 2-49D is admitted and we'll publish now. We can stop it there, that. Thanks, >> Scott. 2-51D. Sir, do you recognize that as an April 8th, 2022 text exchange between you and Miss Richards? >> Yes. >> The state moves to admit and publish 2-51 Delta. Oh, sorry. No objection. >> 2-51D is admitted. this our last one. 2-53 Delta Sky. Sir, do you recognize that as an April the 15, 2022 text exchange between you and Miss Richards? Yeah, I recognize it. I didn't have time to read it all. I'm not saying that I that I need to. I'd like to read it later, maybe. >> Okay, >> your honor. The state um moves to admit 2-53D and publish. >> No objection. >> 2-53D is admitted. Sir, did there come a time after Eric Richen's death When when you met up with Corey? >> Yes. >> Do you recall the first time? >> Yes. >> About when was that? >> I'd guess 2 weeks. 10 days. Two weeks. Something like that. >> What What happened when you met up with him? I forget where we met, but we rode up in into the Uenta mountains together. Two two vehicles, I think. I can't I can't remember. We both wound up in hers, though. In her vehicle. We sat there and talked. >> Did you talk about Eric? >> Yes. Yep. That was the that was the first time first opportunity to to really you know that was the first time. Did there come a time during that discussion that Corey Rich Corey Richens asked you about killing Do you want me to contextualize it, >> please? >> So, yeah. You know, we we sat there and talked for quite a while, you know, and it I had never seen her that way, obviously. Um, it was a heavy conversation. Um, and I'm not used to that with her. she's not used to being open like that. Uh so at at one point my opinion then probably still now looking back was that you know she she was looking for any any reason. I think she was exhausted emotionally and I think she was looking for a reason to divert the conversation away from herself because she does that. She does that about lots of things in normal normal life, you know. Um, and I think that's what she did. Uh, she asked me Go ahead. I'll let you ask. I know. >> True. But >> did did she ask you a question about killing? >> She did asked me if I if uh Yeah. >> What s What s did she ask? >> She asked if if I had ever killed anybody. >> And was that specific to killed anybody while serving in Iraq? >> Right. >> Did you respond? >> I did. Did she ask a follow-up question? >> Yes. >> Sir, what was that follow-up question? >> She asked me how it made me feel or something along those lines. >> And then I answered her. I took it as not out of the normal though. Really? >> Did you and Cory Richens stay romantically involved after Eric Rich's death? >> Yes. >> For how long? >> I You'd have to look at at my phones to tell me that. I'm going to guess, bless you, 6 months, maybe 8, 10. Best, best guess. >> And then what happened? >> Uh, I don't know. Just had a falling out, disagreements, think, you know, things changed after Eric passed. I mean it, you know, I don't know what to say. Things things weren't the same. So, I don't know if that led to to us parting ways or or what, but it there was a lot on both of us. You know what I mean? >> Understand. Thank you, sir. I don't have any further questions. Oh, do you need to take a restroom break? >> May we take a restroom break? >> Yes. Please rise for the jury. I'm going to play it safe here. If you need to use the restroom, you can leave the courtroom. I need everybody else to just stay put until Mr. Grossman comes back into the courtroom. Thank you. >> You can have a seat. >> Yes, you can do what you need to. >> Chris, we're going to go off the record for a couple minutes.