Smolka v. State

662 So. 2d 1255, 1995 WL 471649
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 9, 1995
Docket93-971
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 662 So. 2d 1255 (Smolka v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smolka v. State, 662 So. 2d 1255, 1995 WL 471649 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

662 So.2d 1255 (1995)

Thomas E. SMOLKA, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 93-971.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

August 9, 1995.
Rehearing Denied October 11, 1995.

Neal R. Sonnett and Miguel M. de la O, Neal R. Sonnett, P.A., Miami, and William Whipple, III, Wilmington, DE, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Thomas E. Smolka ["Smolka"] appeals his conviction of first-degree murder of his wife, Betty Anne. After examining all the circumstantial evidence adduced by the State, we *1256 conclude the evidence will not support the conviction and reverse.

Smolka and Betty Anne were residents of Virginia Beach, Virginia but had become investors in the Radisson hotel in Ocala, Florida. They were visiting the Radisson in July 1991. While in Ocala, on July 10, Betty Anne ran an errand to the local Phar-Mor drugstore to purchase some light bulbs and grease pencils for the hotel. She entered the Phar-Mor at approximately 7:15 p.m. and left the store with her purchases approximately twenty minutes later. She was expected to return to the Radisson, and she and her husband were to join some friends for a show at the local comedy club. When she had not returned by midnight, Smolka called 911 to report her missing. The next day, a Radisson security guard searching for Betty Anne found her rented minivan parked inconspicuously facing the highway in a Pizza Hut parking lot located off of S.R. 200. The vehicle showed signs of firearm damage, and the middle seat and floor of the vehicle were covered with blood. On July 14, 1991, Betty Anne's body was discovered by two rollerbladers in a grassy area located near an apartment complex off Highway 27, in Marion County.

The police immediately focused on Smolka as the primary suspect in Betty Anne's murder although there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. The State theorized that Smolka murdered her in order to collect $500,000 from two life insurance policies. While Smolka was seen at the hotel shortly before and after his wife disappeared, the State suggested that he or an accomplice may have committed the murder and then disposed of the body some hours later. Smolka emphasized the lack of physical evidence linking him to the murder and suggested that the evidence provided the alternative hypothesis of innocence that Betty Anne was killed by an unknown assailant during an attempted rape and/or robbery.

Smolka's Financial Motive:

The testimony at trial revealed that the Smolkas entered into a limited partnership agreement with James Dalton, in September 1990, to invest in a faltering Ocala hotel and to convert it into a Radisson franchise. There was no purchase price paid for the hotel; rather, the partnership assumed the first and second mortgages and all of the existing leases. Formally, the partnership was established only between Betty Anne and Dalton, who were equal, limited partners. Laurabe Corporation, which also appears to have been owned solely by Betty Anne and Dalton, served as the general partner. The record suggests that the partnership was placed in Betty Anne's name to protect against Smolka's other creditors; however, Smolka did personally guarantee the loan. In November or December 1990, Betty Anne's interest in the hotel was transferred to the "Betty Anne Smolka Family Trust" ["the Trust"], with the Smolka children as beneficiaries. Greg Flanagan, the Smolkas' Ocala attorney, was the trustee of the trust.

The testimony showed that Betty Anne took no active role in the business. Dalton managed the hotel's day-to-day operations. Smolka had promised Dalton that he would provide additional, personal capital, when needed, in order to keep the operation afloat; he was also charged with selling or leasing the "outparcels" of real estate owned by the hotel to raise capital.

By early 1991, it was evident that the resurrection of the hotel was not going as planned. Even though the partnership had anticipated a slow start, the negative cash flow was worse than expected. By the spring of 1991, the partnership was several months behind on the mortgage payments and many of their suppliers began refusing the hotel credit. Smolka began to increase his involvement in the hotel's daily operations, and this involvement led to increasing tension between Smolka and Dalton. Smolka also failed to provide much of the extra capital for the hotel that he had promised Dalton he would be contributing. The record suggests that Smolka was stalling Dalton's demands by telling him that he had some money coming from an insurance policy on a house that had burned down in North Carolina. When the partnership was unable to bring their mortgage or their franchise fees current, they began getting demand letters; *1257 by May 1991, the bank had declared their loan in default.

The testimony at trial showed that the reason Smolka was unable to provide the additional capital needed to run the hotel was because his personal finances were rapidly declining. A forensic accountant testified that Smolka had refinanced a piece of Virginia real estate for $2,000,000 in 1988, and was using that money and credit card advances to support himself and his family. The $2,000,000 had dwindled to $1,200 cash by May 1991, and Smolka was heavily in credit card debt. Smolka needed $28,000 a month to meet the debt service on the refinanced property and living expenses of his family. The $85,000 received in early 1990 from the fire insurance proceeds on the North Carolina home was spent in seventeen days, almost all of it going to creditors. By the end of May 1991, Smolka was virtually out of money.

In the summer of 1990, Smolka was approached by his life insurance agent to discuss his coverage needs. When he finally met with Smolka in March 1991, Smolka decided, after discussing several options, to increase the couple's life insurance, even though he already had a $500,000 policy on himself and a $250,000 policy on Betty Anne. An application was taken on May 24, 1991, and Smolka increased their coverage with term life insurance policies of $500,000 and $250,000 on himself and Betty Anne, respectively. This amount and type of insurance was not unusual, especially in light of the fact that the Smolkas had just had their third child, Molly. The testimony demonstrated that Smolka never initiated any of the telephone conversations with the insurance agent, but deferred to his agent's advice. The testimony also showed that, in making their applications, Smolka and Betty Anne both appeared concerned about having enough insurance to protect their children. Further, at Smolka's suggestion, Betty Anne's new policy was made payable to the "Betty Anne Smolka Family Trust", with the children as beneficiaries. Conversely, Smolka's new policy was payable equally to the trust and to Betty Anne. The policies were delivered to the Smolkas on July 2, 1991, ten days before Betty Anne was murdered.

The Decline of the Smolkas' Marital Relationship:

The testimony at trial also showed that the couple experienced a significant deterioration in their marital relationship around the time of Betty Anne's pregnancy with Molly in 1989. Family members and visitors to the couple's home noticed that the couple was arguing with an increased frequency and with increased anger. The Smolkas' arguments became filled with tension, making it uncomfortable for some family members to be around the couple.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ramsammy v. State
43 So. 3d 100 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Terranova v. State
764 So. 2d 612 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Brown v. State
672 So. 2d 648 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
662 So. 2d 1255, 1995 WL 471649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smolka-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.