State v. Morton.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1946
• Citation: State v. Morton., 142 Me. 254, 49 A.2d 907 (Me. 1946)
• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. MORTON.

49 A.2d 907

STATE v. MORTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 25, 1946.

Report and Agreed Statement from Superior Court, Oxford County.

Frank Morton was charged with the illegal possession of a deer. On report and agreed statement of facts from the superior court.

Case remanded to superior court for entry of judgment for Frank Morton.

Theodore Gonya, Co. Atty., of Rumford, for the State.

George A. Hutchins and Peter M. MacDonald, both of Rumford, for respondent.

Before STURGIS, C. J., THAXTER, MURCHIE, TOMPKINS, and FELLOWS, JJ., and MANSER, Active Retired Justice.

FELLOWS, Justice.

This is a complaint and warrant issued from Rumford Falls Municipal Court for illegal possession of parts of a deer, which deer, it is alleged, had not been registered as required by the fish and game statutes. In the Municipal Court the respondent was found guilty and took an appeal to the Superior Court. At the March Term 1946 of the Superior Court for Oxford County the case went to trial before a drawn jury, but by agreement it was withdrawn from the jury and submitted to the Law Court on agreed statement of facts. Revised Statutes 1944, Chap. 91, Sec. 14. The questions now before this Court are (1) whether the warrant is bad for duplicity and (2) whether the facts in the agreed statement are sufficient to authorize a jury to find the respondent guilty.

Complaint.

The well established rule of criminal pleading, that prohibits the joinder of two or more substantive offences in the same count, is important to every respondent. It is necessary that a person who is accused of a crime, should know the specific charge against him in order that his rights be protected. Each count should, therefore, present only a single issue, which, if sustained, subjects the accused to a punishment that is specified. Duplicity, however, is a formal defect, and ordinarily objection should be made by demurrer or motion to quash. State v. Smith, 61 Me. 386; State v. Palmer, 35 Me. 9; State v. Derry, 118 Me. 431, 108 A. 568. This case is on report, and although the record does not show a motion or a demurrer, counsel for the State and counsel for the respondent apparently assume this issue of duplicity has been raised, or is raised by the agreed statement.

The allegations in the complaint are ‘that Frank Morton of Andover in said County of Oxford at said Andover on the 2nd day of November, A.D. 1945 did have in his possession parts of a deer, which said deer had not been registered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 33 of the Laws of 1945 of the State of Maine.’ The respondent is accused of having in his possession parts of an unregistered deer. The deer, as a whole animal, was not registered. He is not accused of having nonregistered parts. Only one offense is charged. Revised Statutes 1944, Chapter 33, as revised in Public Laws of 1945, c. 374, Chapter 33, Section 88, and known as the ‘Eighth Biennial Revision of the Inland Fish and Game Laws.’ A complaint or indictment, otherwise sufficient, is not vitiated because it includes unnecessary words, or does not accurately identify the particular statute. State v. Hatch, 94 Me. 58, 46 A. 796; State v. Noble, 15 Me. 476; State v. Dunning, 83 Me. 178, 22 A. 109. The constitutional requirements are satisfied if the facts are stated with that reasonable degree of fullness, certainty and precision necessary to enable the accused to meet the exact charge against him, and to plead any judgment rendered against him in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. State v. Doran, 99 Me. 329, 59 A. 440, 105 Am.St.Rep. 278; State v. Strout, 132 Me. 134, 167 A. 859; State v. Smith, 140 Me. 255, 37 A.2d 246; State v. Jalbert, 139 Me. 333, 30 A.2d 799. The complaint is good.

Proof.

Section 88 of the 1945 revision of the Inland Fish and Game Laws states, in the fifth paragraph, that ‘no person shall have in possession at any time any deer or part thereof, except as herein provided.’ The remainder of Section 88 provides, among other things, for registration stations to register and tag each deer presented for registration; that all deer killed must be presented at one of these stations by the killer or his agent; and that no person shall keep a deer which he has killed, at his home, or any place of storage, more than 12 hours without registration. Section 82 of the Revision provides for one deer a season.

The State claims that the facts, agreed upon, present such convincing circumstantialevidence that a jury would be authorized to find this respondent guilty of the crime charged in the complaint.

By the plea of not guilty the accused has put in issue every essential averment in the complaint. His plea is not affirmative. He is not required to prove his innocence. The State, by the facts presented, must establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the State has the burden to show (1) that a crime has been committed and, if there has been a crime, (2) that the respondent committed it. To justify a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must point to the respondent's guilt, and be inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis. State v. Merry, 136 Me. 243, 8...