State v. Creamer
| Decision Date | 23 November 1977 |
| Citation | 379 A.2d 996 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Jeffrey P. CREAMER. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Michael D. Seitzinger (orally), Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, Frank F. Harding, Dist. Atty., Rockland, for plaintiff.
Strong & Fletcher by James W. Strong (orally), Thomaston, for defendant.
Before POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ.
In a jury-waived trial in Superior Court in Knox County the Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct under the provisions of the new Maine Criminal Code. 1
The complaint, brought initially in the District Court, alleged that in the parking lot of the District Court the Defendant had knowingly insulted one Earl Mineau with offensive words (which were expressly pleaded) and with a clenched fist directed at Mr. Mineau. The complaint asserted that the offensive words and gestures:
". . . would in fact have a direct tendency to cause a violent response by an ordinary person in the situation of Earl Mineau, that situation consisting of the following facts: that said Jeffrey P. Creamer was just leaving the Rockland District Court where he had been a witness in behalf of a defendant found guilty of imprudent speed."
The Defendant seasonably moved to dismiss this complaint for failure to state an offense, urging that there was an insufficient statement of the circumstances under which the acts took place. That motion was denied, and the Defendant presses that point upon his appeal here.
We sustain the appeal.
Our law relating to the pleading of disorderly conduct has lost none of its vitality through the recent enactment of the Maine Criminal Code.
One requirement is that the complaint must set forth the acts alleged to have constituted a violation of the statute. State v. White, Me., 280 A.2d 810, 812 (1971). It must be more than the complainant's characterization of the acts; it must sufficiently inform the defendant of the specific conduct charged to have been disorderly. State v. Good, Me., 308 A.2d 576, 578 (1973). In explicit fashion this complaint met that requirement.
A further requirement, however, is that the complaint must set forth the immediate circumstances under which the act occurred with sufficient particularity to allow a court to discern the impact upon the public peace to be expected from such behavior. There must be enough relevant information in the complaint so that the criminal character, if any, of the acts can be determined. State v. Drake, Me., 325 A.2d 52, 55 (1974).
As to this further requirement the complaint in the case before us was fatally defective.
Nothing in the complaint discloses what dealings there may have been between Mr. Mineau and this Defendant, nor what role Mr. Mineau may have had in the District Court hearing at which the Defendant had testified that day. The complaint did not state how near the Defendant may have been to Mr. Mineau, or how far from him, at the time of the allegedly offensive conduct. We do not suggest that attendant circumstances such as these should be pleaded in minute detail; we do reaffirm that there must be enough...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. John W.
...3310(2)(B)(2), we find no abuse of discretion. The petition, as amended, was minimally sufficient under the standards of State v. Creamer, Me., 379 A.2d 996 (1977), although the conduct proven did not exactly conform II. Denial of Dispositional Hearing Our interest in the rights of juvenile......
-
State v. Spearin
...961 (Me.1983); State v. Gordon, 437 A.2d 855, 857 (Me.1981). Defendant nevertheless argues, in reliance on our decision in State v. Creamer, 379 A.2d 996 (Me.1977), that the indictment was insufficient for its failure to allege the specific circumstances which made him believe "it probable ......
-
State v. Perry
...conduct charged to have been disorderly. State v. Good, 308 A.2d 576, 578 (Me.1973). Defendant's reliance upon the case of State v. Creamer, 379 A.2d 996 (Me.1977), as authority for the insufficiency of the complaint in this case is mistaken. Creamer was charged with a violation of subsecti......
-
State v. McLaughlin
...was harmless. With regard to defendant's remaining arguments, we conclude that the complaint is sufficiently specific, see State v. Creamer, 379 A.2d 996 (Me.1977), and that the evidence supports the verdict. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring. ...