State v. Davis

Citation580 A.2d 163
PartiesSTATE of Maine v. Craig DAVIS.
Decision Date27 September 1990
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

William R. Anderson, Dist. Atty., Ellsworth, for State.

Joseph H. Field, Loyd, Bumgardner & Field, Brunswick, for defendant.


BRODY, Justice.

Craig Davis appeals an order entered by the Superior Court (Hancock County, Chandler, J.) denying his post-trial motion to dismiss two counts of an indictment charging him with attempted murder. 1 Davis argues that because he was convicted of aggravated assault charges at the first trial, a retrial on the attempted murder charges arising from the same acts would violate his rights under the double jeopardy clauses of the Maine and United States Constitutions. We affirm the denial of Davis' motion.

On February 13, 1989, Davis shot and injured two Rockland police officers. He was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon 15 M.R.S.A. § 393 (1980 & Supp.1989-1990), two counts of aggravated assault 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 208(1)(B) and 1252(5) (1983), and two counts of attempted murder 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 201(1)(A) and 152 (1983). After change of venue for trial, a Hancock County jury on November 3, 1989, found Davis guilty on the firearm possession charge and both counts of aggravated assault. The jury was deadlocked on the attempted murder charges and the trial court declared a mistrial with respect to those charges.

The double jeopardy clauses of the United States 2 and Maine 3 Constitutions prohibit conviction of more than one separate criminal offense arising out of the same act when the facts proved to support the conviction of one offense are the same facts supporting the conviction of the other. State v. Poulin, 538 A.2d 278, 279 (Me.1988). The Maine courts apply the same test applied by the United States Supreme Court to determine whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes: the same act can be punished under two different statutory provisions as long as a conviction under each provision requires proof of a factual element that the other does not. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1931); State v. Thornton, 540 A.2d 773, 776 (Me.1988); Newell v. State, 371 A.2d 118, 119 (Me.1977). This test may be satisfied notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes. Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975).

A defendant may be convicted of both aggravated assault and attempted murder because there is at least one element not common to both. The critical element of aggravated assault is bodily injury caused by the defendant's behavior. 4 The defendant's mental state can be intentional, knowing or reckless. By contrast, the elements of attempted murder consist of an intent to cause the death of another human being, accompanied by the intentional taking of a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. 5 The offenses differ in two important respects. First, aggravated assault requires proof of bodily injury and attempted murder does not. Secondly, and more importantly, the mental element is different: attempted murder requires proof of a specific intent to cause death and aggravated assault has no such element. Simultaneous prosecution and punishment for both crimes is not barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the Maine or United States Constitutions.

The entry is:

Order denying motion to dismiss affirmed.

All concurring.

1 An order denying a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable as an exception to the final judgment rule. State v. Flick, 495 A.2d 339, 341 (Me.1985); State v. Hanson, 483 A.2d 723, 724 (Me.1984); see, also, Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2041, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977).

2 The fifth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Bennett v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 5 Julio 2017
    ...manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 208 (1981). See State v. Davis , 580 A.2d 163, 164 (Me. 1990) (noting that the "critical element of aggravated assault is bodily injury caused by the defendant's behavior" and that the "defendant'......
  • State ‘i v. Walsh
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • 23 Agosto 2011
    ...adverse inference from the defendant's presence at trial and his corresponding opportunity to hear all the witnesses testify[,]” Jones, 580 A.2d at 163. In Hart v. United States, 538 A.2d 1146, 1149 (D.C.C.A.1988), the prosecutor during rebuttal “suggested that [the defendant's] testimony w......
  • State v. George, 19648
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 31 Julio 1991
    ...death is necessary. Therefore, each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Id. (citation omitted); see State v. Davis, 580 A.2d 163 (Me.1990); State v. Worl, 58 Wash.App. 443, 794 P.2d 31, review granted on other grounds, 115 Wash.2d 1022, 804 P.2d 9 Therefore, we hold t......
  • State v. Pineo
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • 7 Junio 2002
    ...does not. This test may be satisfied notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes. State v. Davis, 580 A.2d 163, 164 (Me.1990) (citations omitted); accord United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993); Blockburger v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT