State v. Hurd
| Decision Date | 16 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. Fra-09-560. |
| Citation | 8 A.3d 651,2010 ME 118 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Ryan A. HURD. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Richard L. Hartley, Esq. (orally), Law Office of Richard L. Hartley, Bangor, ME, for Ryan Hurd.
James A. Andrews (orally), Assistant District Attorney, Franklin County District Attorney's Office, Farmington, ME, for the State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
[¶ 1] This appeal asks us to consider M.R. Evid. 606(b) and our prior precedents holding that, to protect the integrity of the jury deliberation and verdict announcement process, a trial court, once it has taken a verdict and discharged a jury, may not reconvene the jury, permit the jury to impeach its original verdict, accept a different verdict, and enter judgment in accordance with that different verdict.
[¶ 2] Ryan A. Hurd appeals from a judgment of conviction of aggravated operating under the influence (OUI) (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(D)(1) (2007 & 2009),1 entered in the Superior Court (Franklin County, Murphy, J.) following a jury trial. Hurd argues that the courterred in: (1) instructing the jury as to accomplice liability on the charge of aggravated OUI; and (2) allowing the jury, after rendering a verdict of not guilty on the charge of aggravated OUI and being discharged, to reconvene and, after further inquiry by the trial court, change its verdict to guilty. Hurd also challenges the jury's not being instructed on a defense to liability as an accomplice and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
[¶ 3] Because, after accepting a not guilty verdict and discharging the jury, the court could not question the jury further about its verdict, reconvene the jury, conduct a further inquiry of the jury, and accept a guilty verdict in place of the not guilty verdict, we vacate the judgment.
[¶ 4] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Bruzzese, 2009 ME 61, ¶ 2, 974 A.2d 311, 311-12.
[¶ 5] Ryan Hurd, Chad Bernier, and their foreman, Terry "TJ" Richardson, were working together on a construction project in Franklin County. After work on October 16, 2007, the three men, who were staying in Kingfield, had a cookout behind their motel and began drinking beer and hard liquor. When they ran out of liquor, Hurd drove them in his car, a two-door Pontiac Grand Prix, to Farmington. There they bought some beer and then went to a bar.
[¶ 6] At the bar, all three men appeared intoxicated, though to some observers in the bar, Hurd appeared the most intoxicated.2 As the men were getting ready to leave the bar, a patron overheard them decide that Hurd would drive. However, no one saw who was actually driving when the car left the parking lot, and one or more bar patrons had told Richardson that he should drive because Hurd was not "good enough to drive."
[¶ 7] As the driver was attempting to return to Kingfield, speeding in excess of ninety miles per hour, he lost control of the car in New Vineyard. The car left the road; hit a utility pole on the driver's side near the steering column, breaking the pole off; hit a tree stump; and came to rest on its roof.
[¶ 8] Rescuers arriving at the scene found Richardson deceased on the driver's side of the car. Bernier, badly injured, was in the back seat. Hurd was apparently ejected from the vehicle and walked to a nearby house from where the owner called 911, triggering the emergency response.
[¶ 9] In the hours and days following the accident, Hurd, and later Bernier, gave several conflicting statements as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hurd said, variously, that (1) Bernier had been driving while Hurd sat in the backseat; (2) Richardson had been driving while Hurd was in the front passenger seat; (3) Hurd had been driving even though he did not really want to drive; (4) Hurd was pretty sure that he had pulled over and then someone else "took over"; (5) Hurd had been driving "at some point"; (6) last Hurd knew, Richardson was driving; and (7) Hurd did not know or did not remember who was driving at the time of the crash.
[¶ 10] According to Bernier's statements to police and subsequent trial testimony, Richardson drove Hurd's car whenthey left the bar to return to Kingfield, but they stopped to change direction, at which point Hurd insisted on driving. Bernier believed that Richardson and Hurd traded seats, and then Hurd drove the car.
[¶ 11] Hurd was indicted for one count of manslaughter (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A) (2009); one count of aggravated OUI (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(D)(1); and one count of OUI (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A), (5)(A)(3)(a)(i) (2007).3 He entered a plea of not guilty. A six-day jury trial was held beginning May 12, 2009. The State dismissed the third count of the indictment, OUI (Class D), on the first day of trial.
[¶ 12] There was no dispute at trial that the car belonged to Hurd. However, there was considerable dispute in the testimony of both fact witnesses and accident reconstruction experts as to whether Hurd or Richardson was driving the car at the time of the accident. The evidence in the record would support a finding that either Richardson or Hurd was driving.
[¶ 13] The day before the case went to the jury, the parties discussed jury instructions with the court. The court granted, over Hurd's objection, 4 the State's request that the jury be instructed that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to manslaughter or to aggravated OUI.5 The court also granted the State's request for an instruction on accomplice liability as to the aggravated OUI charge. The accomplice instruction request was based on the theory that, according to certain of Hurd's statements to police and medical personnel, Hurd had been driving his car when the men left the bar, and then switched seats with Richardson, aiding Richardson in the commission of the crime of aggravated OUI. Hurd objected to the accomplice instruction.
[¶ 14] Both parties and the court were active in the fashioning and approval of the instructions submitted to the jury. As to Count II, the court instructed the jury as to the elements of the OUI charge. The court then advised the jury that a person may commit aggravated OUI as a principal or as an accomplice and instructed the jury that if it concluded that the State had failed to prove all elements of aggravated OUI, the jury must then consider if the State has proved Hurd's guilt for aggravated OUI as an accomplice.
[¶ 15] The key elements of the court's instruction were as follows:
[¶ 16] The court then proceeded to describe the elements of the crime of aggravated OUI as an accomplice.
[¶ 17] Neither party requested that the court advise the jury that if the jury was unanimous that the State had proved the elements of aggravated OUI beyond a reasonable doubt on either principal or accomplice liability theories, it could return a verdict of guilty, even if the jurors were not in agreement as to whether guilt was based on principal or accomplice liability. Instead, the jurors appeared to have been advised to decide the liability as a principal question first and, if they were not in agreement that liability as a principal was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, to then proceed to consider the accomplice liability issue. No objection was raised to the verdict return procedure to be utilized in which the verdict would be returned by the clerk asking the jury if its verdict was guilty or not guilty on each count. A verdict form was not used, and no one indicated that the jury should be asked a separate question regarding accomplice liability.
[¶ 18] After the jury announced it had reached a verdict, the jury returned to the courtroom where the verdict was taken by responses to questions posed orally by the clerk.
[¶ 19] As to Count I, manslaughter, the foreperson reported a verdict of "not guilty." The clerk then asked the jury for its verdict with respect to Count II of the indictment, the count of aggravated OUI. The foreperson replied, "not guilty." There was then some disturbance in the courtroom and apparently certain spectators began sobbing.6 In response to a question by the clerk, the jury acknowledged that these were its verdicts. The court then thanked the jurors for their service, expressed regret that at points the trial had been interrupted, and discharged them from any further obligation to serve as jurors for five years. The court later reported on the record that the jurors had appeared confused when they were discharged, but that the court believed at the time that the jurors were reacting, perhaps in fear, to the emotional response in the courtroom.7
[¶ 20] The jurors left the courtroom and returned to the jury room. Within a minute or two, a judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDaniels v. Sci
...(Ala. 2011) (per curiam), Spears v. Mills, 69 S.W.3d 407, 413 (Ark. 2002); West v. State, 92 N.E.2d 852, 855 (Ind. 1950); State v. Hurd, 8 A.3d 651, 662 (Me. 2010); Sargent v. State, 11 Ohio 472, 474 (1842) (en banc); Ware v. Graham, 417 P.2d 936, 939 (Okla. Crim. App. 1966); Yonker v. Grim......
-
State v. Scott
...has engaged in external misconduct affecting the verdict," Leon , 2018 ME 70, ¶ 10, 186 A.3d 129 ; see also M.R. Evid. 606(b) ; State v. Hurd , 2010 ME 118, ¶ 42, 8 A.3d 651 (stating that courts cannot "inquire[ ] into the jury's deliberative process beyond establishing, to the extent permi......
-
State v. George
...personally does the acts that constitute the crime or if [s]he is an accomplice of another person who actually commits the crime.” State v. Hurd, 2010 ME 118, ¶ 29, 8 A.3d 651;see also State v. Nguyen, 2010 ME 14, ¶ 15, 989 A.2d 712. To be convicted as a principal or an accomplice, “an indi......
-
State v. Dobbins, Docket: Aro-17-539
...accomplice liability to make clear that more than one person can be guilty of a single crime.8 See 17-A M.R.S. § 57(3)(A) (2018) ; State v. Hurd , 2010 ME 118, ¶ 29, 8 A.3d 651. In excluding evidence of Geary's guilty plea, however, the court concluded that—as to Geary —the same type of ins......