State v. Charette

• Decision Date: 21 March 1963
• Citation: 159 Me. 124,188 A.2d 898
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Gerard CHARETTE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 898

188 A.2d 898

159 Me. 124

STATE of Maine v. Gerard CHARETTE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 21, 1963.

John J. Harvey, County Atty., Biddeford, George S. Hutchins, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Ogunquit, for plaintiff.

Robert G. Pelletier, Sanford, for defendant.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SIDDALL, MARDEN, and SULLIVAN, JJ.

TAPLEY, Justice.

On exceptions. The respondent was indicted under provisions of P.L.1957, Chap. 333, Sec. 2, as amended, (now Chap. 22, Sec 151-B. R.S.1954). The pertinent portion of the section reads:

'Any person who operates a vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of others and thereby causes the death of another person, when the death of such person results within one year, shall be guilty of the offense of reckless homicide.'

The respondent filed a demurrer attacking the sufficiency of the indictment. The demurrer was overruled, whereupon the respondent took exceptions.

The indictment is couched in the following language:

'STATE OF MAINE

'YORK, ss.

'At the Superior Court, begun and holden at Alfred within and for the County of York, on the First Tuesday of MAY in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-two

'THE GRAND JURORS FOR SAID STATE upon their oath present that Gerard Charette of Sanford in the County of York, laborer, on the twenty-third day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-two at Old Orchard Beach in said County of York, with force and arms did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously operate a motor vehicle, to wit, an automobile, over and upon Saco Avenue, so called, in said Old Orchard Beach, with reckless disregard for the safety of others, to wit, with reckless disregard for the safety of Joseph Vincent Bell, in that he did then and there fail to keep a proper lookout under the surrounding circumstances, and failed to see said Joseph Vincent Bell who was crossing said Saco Avenue, did then and there fail to have his motor vehicle under proper control, did then and there operate said motor vehicle knowing that said motor vehicle was not then and there provided with brakes adequate to stop said motor vehicle and sufficient to control said motor vehicle, whereby the said Gerard Charette did then and there operate his said motor vehicle on and into the person and body of said Joseph Vincent Bell and did then and there cause the death of said Joseph Vincent Bell within one year thereafter and on the twenty-third day of March, 1962, against the peace of said State, and contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided.

'A TRUE BILL

'Kenneth R. Stowe

FOREMAN.

'John J. Harvey

'Attorney for the State for said County.'

The respondent contends that the indictment is insufficient in law because:

'1. The indictment fails to appraise the respondent of what the 'surrounding circumstances' were.

'2. The indictment fails to appraise the respondent of the manner in which he failed to have the motor vehicle under proper control.

'3. The indictment is insufficient in that it does not allege that an unlawful act committed by the respondent was the proximate cause of death.

'4. The indictment is insufficient in that it does not state the date said Joseph Vincent Bell died.

'5. The indictment fails to contain all the allegations necessary to sustain an indictment of reckless homicide in that it does not sufficiently set out the facts that make the crime, and therefore the respondent is not appraised of what the State is attempting to prove.'

If the statute does not sufficiently set out the facts which constitute the crime then the pleadings must contain a more definite statement of the facts. State v. Strout, 132 Me. 134, 167 A. 859; ...