By Danielle Eden C. Silva
Department 11 began the jury trial of Randal David Rose this morning. Mr. Rose is charged with the felony of the intent to defraud by using a contractor’s license that is not his. Both counsel, the defendant and his family, and the investigating officer were present.
In opening statements, the prosecution shared that the complaining witness had been making the decisions for her home as her husband had a medical condition. The complaining witness wanted to engage in several housing projects. A longtime handyman, who the prosecution claims is a co-conspirator, recommended that the complaining witness see Mr. Rose in late August 2012.
The complaining witness intended to have everything done orderly, getting permits to every renovation to her home and keeping all the documentation on file. She believed Mr. Rose to be a licensed contractor, not the employee of a licensed contractor, due to the card he gave her. The prosecution shared that Mr. Rose acted under the guise of being a licensed contractor, faxing documents to the complaining witness from the office of a licensed contractor and giving the address of the business.
The prosecution also stated the defense will say that the defendant never said he was a licensed contractor, but the complaining witness believed he was one. In September 2012, the complaining 
witness checked in the Owner/Builder requirements of an approved roof permit that she was dealing with a licensed contractor.
Additionally, the prosecution stated the defense would argue that the handyman was forced to write the address under Mr. Rose’s name on a submitted document. Among the documents published to the jury, the prosecution also displayed checks paid from the complaining witness to the handyman and the defendant, but noted the defendant had also been paid in cash transactions.
The defense said the complaining witness wanted to do renovations and the handyman recommended Mr. Rose. However, the defense argued that the complaining witness knew Mr. Rose was unlicensed and it would have taken a few calls to confirm this. The card’s formatting was the same for all of the construction business’s employees, save for the change of name and cell number.
The charge of defrauding was brought up. The defense concentrated on the fact that the charge needed to have the defendant intend to commit fraud. To defraud means causing a loss of something of value. The defense argued that the construction business allowed employees to have side jobs when business was slow. The handyman did not say Mr. Rose was a licensed contractor and Mr. Rose simply used the cards for contact information, not to deceive anyone.
The defense also argued that Mr. Rose was treated like an employee, not like a general contractor. He had been paid an hourly wage instead of being paid at the end and he had not brought his own crew or lead in construction. The defense argued the complaining witness had control over the situation and knew the insurance obligations she would need to get if she didn’t have a licensed contractor. The defense advised the jury to listen carefully and wait for the defense’s case which would follow the prosecution’s.
After opening statements, the prosecution called the owner of the construction business to the stand.
The owner of the construction business is a licensed contractor with five employees, Mr. Rose being a former employee. He shared that all his employees have business cards under the same format save for the difference in name and phone number.
In 2012, the business owner could not take on more business. He, however, did not give any permission to use his license number. The business owner also specified they only worked on commercial and tenant improvements, not on residential construction such as family homes.
In 2015, the complaining witness contacted his office multiple times on the work that Mr. Rose did on her home. He faxed her a letter on October 30, 2015, to contact Mr. Rose instead of that office, attempting to distance himself from the situation. Prior to this, the business owner heard nothing on the complaining witness’s home. The landline fax provided in the office also had the same fax number as the card.
Three other business cards from his company were brought up to the stand, similar in format save for the name and personal number. The witness shared these cards were only to be used when working for the construction business, not side projects. The current business cards now include a position, a website, and an email. However, the name, position, and personal cell phone number are the only changes to the format. The witness noted he was required by law to share his license number on his business card. The witness also noted that the defendant worked for him for nine years and had been a good worker.
The prosecution next called the complaining witness to the stand.
The witness shared she had testified before but noted other family matters were on her mind at the moment. She noted she lived in Clarksburg and has lived there since 2011, teaching children at a daycare in her home. Her home, where she lives with her retired husband, is made up of the main house, a guest house, and an agricultural building. The daycare is stationed in the main house.
The witness shared that her husband was a self-employed contractor. He had several medical problems that left much of the decision making to her. The complaining witness shared she was roofing the house, and changing a garage into a living room. These renovations would provide the needed room for her husband and the preschool.
The complaining witness shared she needed a licensed contractor to help. After naming a roofing company, she shared she hired the previous witness’s construction business at the recommendation of a handyman who had worked for them for a year and a half. The complaining witness had been satisfied with the handyman’s work, which had been highly recommended to her. She agreed to meet with Mr. Rose with her husband and the handyman, and she believed she needed a licensed contractor. A licensed contractor would be insured and properly be able to help her with renovations if something went wrong. When she received the business card, she saw the license number. The complaining witness also asked if he was licensed, to which he agreed.
The prosecution showed her a copy of the card which she recognized. She also identified several faxes concerning quotes for supplies and checks she paid to the handyman and Mr. Rose. The complaining witness shared that Mr. Rose noted he had financial difficulty and she reimbursed them after purchases. On several occasions, she paid the defendant in cash at his request.
The complaining witness also shared that Mr. Rose helped finish up jobs as the handyman began feeling unwell at the time. She identified the fax numbers of her home and the business’s fax machine. The complaining witness restated she got building permits for every project, even if she didn’t need to, and filed them under the belief she had hired a licensed contractor.
