State v. Dana

• Decision Date: 12 November 1986
• Citation: 517 A.2d 719
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Ricky A. DANA, Sr.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 719

517 A.2d 719

STATE of Maine v. Ricky A. DANA, Sr.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Sept. 16, 1986.

Decided Nov. 12, 1986.

Michael E. Povich, Dist. Atty., Jane M. Eaton, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Machias, for plaintiff.

Libhart & Ferm, William N. Ferm (orally), Ellsworth, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.

GLASSMAN, Justice.

Ricky A. Dana, Sr., appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Washington County, entered on a jury verdict of guilty of Count I, passing or attempting to pass a roadblock, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2501-A(4) (Supp.1985), and Count II, attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2501-A(3) (Supp.1985). He contends it was obvious error for the trial court to fail to instruct that intent is an essential element of both offenses, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. For reasons hereinafter set forth we vacate the judgment as to Count I and affirm the judgment as to Count II.

Officer Phillip Stanley of the Pleasant Point Police Department testified that he twice tried to stop Dana's car by blocking its path with a marked police car and activating flashing blue lights. Each time, Dana drove around the police car and away at a high speed. By radio, Officer Stanley contacted State Trooper Dale Earle, who took up the chase using the blue lights of the police vehicle. Trooper Earle encountered Dana twice, but both times Dana accelerated away at speeds that Earle could not match, despite driving over 100 miles an hour at one point. A few minutes after losing sight of Dana, Officer Stanley and Trooper Earle found Dana's car in a carport on Pleasant Point.

Dana first contends it was obvious error for the trial court to instruct the jury in the language of the statute without instructing that intent was a required element of both counts. Because no objection to the instructions was raised at trial, we review on the obvious error standard of M.R.Crim.P. 52(b). See also M.R.Crim.P. 30(b).

The first question is whether intent is an element of the crimes charged. Some culpable mental state is an essential requirement for any crime, unless a contrary legislative intent plainly appears. State v. Davis, 398 A.2d 1218, 1219 (Me.1979). We have described this requirement as a "fundamental principle of our Criminal Code." State v. Lagasse, 410 A.2d 537, 540 (Me.1980). Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 34(1) (1983) provides that "[a] person is not guilty of a crime unless he acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law defining the crime specifies, with respect to each other element of the crime, except as provided in subsection 5...." Subsection 5 provides:

If a statute defining a crime does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to some or all of the elements of the crime, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required, pursuant to subsections 1, 2 and 3, unless:

A. The statute expressly provides that a person may be guilty of a crime without a culpable state of mind as to those elements; or

B. A legislative intent to impose liability without a culpable state of mind as to those elements otherwise appears.

17-A M.R.S.A. § 34(5) (1983). Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 6 (1983) provides that the requirement of section 34 applies to crimes outside the Criminal Code "unless the context of the statute defining the crime clearly requires otherwise."

29 M.R.S.A. § 2501-A (Supp.1985) does not expressly include or exclude a culpable mental state requirement. ¹ The language and context of the statute negate any inference that the legislature intended to hold motorists strictly liable for the acts described in the statute. Subsection (2) proscribes failing or refusing to stop at the request of a law enforcement officer. Subsection (3) proscribes attempting to elude a law enforcement officer. Subsection (4) proscribes passing or attempting to pass a roadblock.

A statute must be construed as a whole to give effect to the intent of the legislature. The words "refuse" and "attempt" by their common definitions describe intentional acts. We conclude that the legislature by penalizing refusing to stop, attempting to elude, and passing or attempting to pass a roadblock intended to punish persons who act with a certain mental state. This conclusion is reinforced by our recognition that penal statutes must be strictly construed, State v. Lane, 495 A.2d 773, 776 (Me.1985). Neither of the exceptions to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 34(5) applies to 29 M.R.S.A. § 2501-A. Accordingly, we hold that a culpable state of mind is an essential element of both the crimes with which Dana was charged.

We review the instructions of the trial court to determine whether the court failed to instruct on the requisite culpable mental state and, if so, whether this failure deprived Dana of a fair trial. State v. Pierce, 438 A.2d 247, 252 (Me.1981). None of the instructions on Count I informed the jury that intentional or knowing action was an essential element of the offense of passing a roadblock, nor was intent defined in relation to the offense of an attempt to pass a roadblock. See State v. Earley, 454 A.2d 341, 343 (Me.1983); 17-A M.R.S.A. § 152(1). The failure to instruct the jury properly as to what elements were essential to the offense charged denied Dana the right to have the jury test the evidence to determine if each element had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. This failure deprived Dana of a fair trial and constituted obvious error. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to Count I. State v. Earley, 454 A.2d at 343; State v. Pratt, 309 A.2d 864 (Me....