State v. Grant
| Decision Date | 16 November 1978 |
| Citation | 394 A.2d 274 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. John R. GRANT. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Michael E. Povich (orally), Dist. Atty., Ellsworth, George C. Schelling, Law Student, for plaintiff.
Peter R. Roy (orally), Ellsworth, for defendant.
Before POMEROY, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ.
The issue we must face in these appeals is whether the district attorney's cross-examination of the defendant injected inadmissible and prejudicial evidence to such a degree as to constitute reversible error. Since the issue was appropriately saved by seasonable objection and since the evidence thereby adduced went directly to the credibility of the defendant as a witness, we have concluded that the defendant has demonstrated such error.
We, therefore, sustain the appeals.
The four charges, alleged to have been committed on August 20, 1977, for which the defendant had been indicted were serious. 1 Upon conviction on all charges concurrent sentences were imposed which mandated a total confinement in the Maine State Prison of eleven (11) years.
An altercation had taken place in an area adjacent to a restaurant in Southwest Harbor in which one George Henderson had been seriously wounded by a bullet admittedly fired by the defendant from his "38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver." Critical to the defense was the defendant's testimony that his use of the weapon was purely an attempt to prevent not only an unlawful arrest but the unlawful use of a firearm by a police officer in making such an arrest. Viewing the testimony in its entirety, the factfinder would not be entirely irrational in adopting the defendant's position, although an opposite result would certainly be sustainable. In short, a critically important factual issue was seriously contested. The defendant's testimony descriptive of his state of mind when the weapon was discharged had to be evaluated by the jury in resolving whether he had the necessary criminal intent which, under each indictment, had to be established by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.
On direct examination defendant had admitted ownership of the weapon. He further admitted he was carrying it in his jacket pocket at the time of the incident. During cross-examination the district attorney, over objection, was allowed to elicit from the defendant that he had violated Maine law by 1) carrying a loaded revolver in a motor vehicle (12 M.R.S.A. § 2456), and 2) carrying a concealed weapon without a license (25 M.R.S.A. § 2031). Likewise, over objection, the district attorney was allowed to ask questions which clearly inferred that the defendant had knowingly violated similar laws in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and New York, although there was no suggestion that the defendant had been convicted of any of these offenses. 2
Both 12 M.R.S.A. § 2456 and 25 M.R.S.A. § 2031 define crimes outside the Maine Criminal Code and each carries a maximum jail term of ninety days. Therefore, we must consider them as Class E crimes. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 4-A(3) (E). Conviction of either would be inadmissible to attack credibility under M.R.Evid. 609(a). 3
The State has argued that the cross-examination was proper because probative of defendant's Mens rea at the time of the alleged offenses. We can find no rational nexus, however, between the willful violation of gun control regulations in Maine and four other states and proof of the criminal intent requisite to convict the defendant of any of the crimes charged. See, e. g., State v. Pinnette, Me., 340 A.2d 17, 21 (1975), and Bessey v. State, Me., 297 A.2d 373, 376 (1972) ().
We acknowledge that there are occasions when "relevant evidence is not required to be excluded merely because it suggests a defendant's involvement in another crime." State v. Gagne, Me., 343 A.2d 186, 195 (1975); State v. Northup, Me., 318 A.2d 489, 493 (1974...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goyette
...exclusion. It may be admissible if it is probative of some element of the crime for which the defendant is being tried. State v. Grant, Me., 394 A.2d 274, 276 (1978); State v. Heald, Me., 393 A.2d 537, 542 (1978); State v. Cugliata, Me., 372 A.2d 1019, 1029 (1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 856......
-
State v. Shuman
...for the limited purpose of establishing an essential element of the crime charged, including the element of intent. State v. Grant, 394 A.2d 274, 276 (Me.1978). Similar threats or acts against others are relevant if there is a sufficient nexus between the evidence sought to be introduced an......
-
State v. Carmichael
...In any event, it is only the fact of conviction, and not the details of the offense, which is admissible.6 See also State v. Grant, Me., 394 A.2d 274 (1978). ...
-
State v. Grant
...convicted on all four counts at his first trial and appealed the convictions to the Law Court. We sustained his appeal in State v. Grant, Me., 394 A.2d 274 (1978). 1 On remand, a second jury trial began on May 21, 1979. The following day a mistrial was declared because the jury foreman had ......