State v. Clough
| Citation | 391 A.2d 361 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Wayne CLOUGH, Edward Barnes, Peter Panetti, Henry Alcantara. |
| Decision Date | 29 September 1978 |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Henry N. Berry, III, Dist. Atty., Thomas L. Goodwin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Peter G. Ballou, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, Stephen M. Sumner (orally), Law Student, for plaintiff.
Ellsworth T. Rundlett, III, (orally), Portland, for defendants.
Before McKUSICK, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, GODFREY, and NICHOLS, JJ.
Like State v. Voisine, Me., 391 A.2d 1196 (1978), this case arose out of the payroll padding scheme in the Portland Public Works Department. The trial in this case was held two months after the trial of Voisine. With some exceptions, the evidence before the jury was similar to that described in the Voisine case. Like Voisine appellants were indicted for conspiracy to commit the crime of cheating by false pretenses and for cheating by false pretenses under former 17 M.R.S.A. §§ 951 and 1601. Appellants were four of the six employees who were most often overpaid.
As in Voisine, the evidence before the jury included the testimony of an outside auditor who demonstrated how each appellant had been overpaid by about $50 on about twenty occasions. Once again Roderick Morgan related his story of how he had padded the time records with resulting overpayment of appellants. Morgan again admitted that he had received kickbacks from some recipients and that some knew of the scheme. Again he testified that some did not give kickbacks, that some might not have known of the overpayments, and that he did not remember which ones knew of the scheme or paid kickbacks. Once again Mr. Flaherty related a prior inconsistent statement by Morgan in which Morgan had described a firm kickback scheme. In this trial there was no objection to Mr. Flaherty's testimony.
This case differed from the Voisine case in that a payroll clerk called by the State testified to a prior conversation with Morgan in which Morgan described a firm kickback scheme. There was no hearsay objection to the clerk's testimony. Appellants called several defense witnesses whose testimony tended to show that overtime arrangements under the applicable union bargaining agreement were complex. The purpose was to show that appellants might not have known they were being overpaid.
The trial court instructed the jury on a conspiracy theory and a false pretenses theory. In contrast to Voisine, the court charged the jury that a finding of conspiracy was not a prerequisite to a conviction on the false pretenses count. Appellants were acquitted on the conspiracy count and convicted on the false pretenses count. The principal ground of their appeals is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial justice should have directed a verdict of acquittal. We must deny their appeals.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hoffstadt, 7106
...value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by other considerations. See State v. Dean, 589 A.2d 929, 933 (Me.1991); State v. Clough, 391 A.2d 361, 362 (Me.1978). When the reason for exclusion is confusion of the issues or danger of misleading the jury, the court should not be hesitan......
-
State v. Dodge
...of relevant evidence, thereby requiring its exclusion, is one within the sound discretion of the presiding justice. See State v. Clough, Me., 391 A.2d 361, 362 (1978); State v. Saucier, Me.,385 A.2d 44, 47 (1978); See also Field and Murray, Maine Evidence, Advisers' Note to Rule 403, at 59 ......
-
State v. Drake
...We review a trial court's determination to exclude evidence pursuant to M.R. Evid. 4031 for abuse of discretion. See State v. Clough, 391 A.2d 361, 362 (Me.1978). "A trial justice has broad discretion in determining whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the danger of conf......
-
State v. DiPietro
...confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury ...." Reviewing the trial justice's ruling for abuse of discretion, see State v. Clough, Me., 391 A.2d 361, 362 (1978), we can find no error. The fact that witness Francoeur had earlier brought a civil suit against defendant DiPietro was alrea......