State v. Beaudoin

• Decision Date: 09 February 1932
• Citation: 158 A. 863
• Parties: STATE v. BEAUDOIN.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

158 A. 863

STATE

v. BEAUDOIN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 9, 1932.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Somerset County.

Emile J. Beaudoin was convicted of illegally transporting liquor and of a former conviction for the same offense. On defendant's exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, and THAXTER, JJ.

Thomas A. Anderson, Co. Atty., of Pittsfield, for the State.

James H. Thorne, of Madison, for respondent.

PATTANGALL, C. J.

On exceptions. Respondent was tried on an indictment charging him with illegal transportation of liquor, containing also an allegation of a former conviction for the same offense. The exceptions are (1) to the refusal of the presiding justice to direct a verdict of not guilty; and (2) to the following instruction given to the jury:

"The fact of a previous conviction is introduced in this case for two purposes. Ordinarily the fact of a previous conviction can only be introduced for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness. That is upon the theory that a witness who has once been convicted of a crime is not so likely to tell the truth in the testimony which he gives, as a witness who has never been convicted of crime. The testimony of a previous conviction bears upon that question and you should take that fact into account in weighing the testimony of the respondent.

"It is also introduced to substantiate the charge in the complaint that this is in fact the second commission of an offense of the same nature. You will take it into account so far as it has any bearing upon the charge in the complaint that this is in fact a second offense."

It is to the second paragraph of this excerpt from the charge that respondent objects.

The first exception needs little consideration. There was ample evidence justifying a verdict of guilty. It was plainly the duty of the presiding justice to submit the case to the jury.

In considering the second exception, our attention is called to section 21, chap. 137, R. S. 1930, which provides that, when a person is charged with a violation of the state prohibitory law and has, to the knowledge of the officer preparing the complaint or indictment, been previously convicted of a similar offense, it shall be the duty of such officer to include in the complaint or indictment a specific allegation of the former conviction. Section 3 of the same chapter provides additional punishment when such previous conviction is proved.

Counsel for respondent argues that it was error to call the attention of the jury to the allegation of a prior conviction and to require a finding as to that fact. The brief states: "It is of no concern to the jury how many times the respondent has previously been convicted of a like offense."

But the respondent had entered a plea of not guilty. It was incumbent on the state to prove every material allegation in the indictment in order to justify the jury in bringing in a verdict of guilty. Respondent was not only charged with illegal transportation of liquor, he was charged with having been previously convicted of a similar offense, and therefore liable to additional punishment. Two issues were raised; namely, the immediate infraction of law and the fact of a prior conviction. State v. Gordon, 35 Mont. 458, 90 P. 173; People v. Ross, 60 Cal. App. 163, 212 P. 627; State v. Zink, 102 W. Va. 619, 135 S. E. 905.

Before he could be subjected to an enhanced punishment for a second violation of law, his guilt on the principal charge must be proved, and also the fact of former conviction. Singer v. United States (C. C. A.) 278 F. 415; Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206, 68 So. 423; McKiney v. Com., 202 Ky. 757, 261 S. W. 276.

In State v. Livermore, 59 Mont. 362, 196 P. 977, it was held that there must be proof of a former conviction on a charge of second or subsequent offense and the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. To the same effect are People v. Price, 6 N. Y. Cr. R. 141, 2 N. Y. S....