State v. Proia

• Decision Date: 27 July 2017
• Docket Number: Docket: Yor-16-490.
• Citation: 168 A.3d 798
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Thomas A. PROIA
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

168 A.3d 798

STATE of Maine

v.Thomas A. PROIA

Docket: Yor-16-490.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: May 10, 2017

Decided: July 27, 2017

Valerie A. Randall, Esq. (orally), and Patrick H. Gordon, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, P.A., Portland, for appellant Thomas A. Proia

Kathryn L. Slattery, District Attorney, and Shira S. Burns, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District 1, Alfred, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

HJELM, J.

[¶ 1] Thomas A. Proia appeals from a judgment entered in the trial court (York County, Douglas, J. ) after a jury-waived trial, convicting him of a number of charges, including crimes of violence, arising from an incident where he engaged in conduct while affected by a distorted view of reality. Proia contends that the court erred in its application of the statutory principle of abnormal condition of the mind, see 17–A M.R.S. § 38 (2016), and that the evidence was insufficient for the court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with the culpable states of mind necessary to commit the crimes for which he was convicted.¹ Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] The following facts found by the court bear on the issues relevant to this appeal and are supported by the evidence. See State v. Jones , 2012 ME 88, ¶ 6, 46 A.3d 1125.

[¶ 3] On October 19, 2015, while running an errand, Proia developed increasingly paranoid and delusional beliefs that he was being followed and was in danger. He returned to his residence, where another family member was present, and he retrieved two assault rifles from the attic. He gave one firearm to the family member, kept the other, and proceeded to fire approximately thirty rounds in various directions from both inside and outside the home. When he left the house to search in the nearby woods for "demons" that he thought he may have shot, the family member remained inside and, after retreating to an upstairs bathroom, called 9–1–1.

[¶ 4] Still in an agitated state, Proia returned to the house, entered the bathroom without the firearm, and told the family member that they were both being threatened by people outside. The 9–1–1 call was terminated at some point, but a dispatcher called back when Proia was lying on top of the family member in the bathroom, ostensibly as protection from the perceived threat. The recording of the return call from the dispatcher captured the sounds of a struggle and of Proia yelling as he prepared to commit sexual assault on the family member. The family member was able to escape by running outside and was eventually taken to safety by a responding police officer.

[¶ 5] Proia then went to a neighbor's property, where he and the occupants of the neighbor's house saw each other through a window. Proia threw a rock through the window, resulting in a laceration to the chest and shoulder of one of the residents. Another neighbor called the police because Proia had also broken one of the windows in that neighbor's house. Police arrived at the scene and ordered Proia to the ground, but he did not comply. Officers twice used a Taser in an attempt to subdue Proia. Even then and after being handcuffed, Proia continued to struggle. He was speaking rapidly and had a frothy substance around his mouth. The officers took Proia to a hospital, where he remained agitated until he was sedated.

[¶ 6] After being charged initially by complaint, Proia was indicted for the ten counts described below and pleaded not guilty to all charges. At a two-day bench trial held in August 2016, the evidence included the testimony of two expert psychological witnesses presented by Proia and Proia's own testimony. Proia did not plead not guilty by reason of insanity, see 17–A M.R.S. § 39 (2016), but instead challenged the State's proof of his mens rea. At the conclusion of the trial, the court made extensive oral findings of fact and found Proia guilty of seven of the ten charges: domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, namely, a firearm, (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. §§ 211–A(1)(A), 1252(4) (2016) ; aggravated assault (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 208(1)(B) (2016) ; two counts of attempted gross sexual assault (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. §§ 152(1)(B), 253(1)(B) (2016) ;² domestic violence assault (Class D), 17–A M.R.S. § 207–A(1)(A) (2016) ; endangering the welfare of a child (Class D), 17–A M.R.S. §§ 554(1)(C), 1201(1)(A–1)(2) (2016) ; and criminal mischief (Class D), 17–A M.R.S. § 806(1)(A) (2016). For reasons unrelated to Proia's state of mind, the court acquitted Proia of the remaining three charges: reckless conduct with the use of a dangerous weapon (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. §§ 211(1), 1252(4) (2016) ; unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 1103(1–A)(E) (2016) ; and refusing to submit to arrest (Class D), 17–A M.R.S. § 751–B(1)(B) (2016).

[¶ 7] In its findings, the court stated that "[t]here is clearly evidence in this case that is relevant to the defense of abnormal condition of the mind ... including [Proia's] extreme anxiety, paranoia, delusions, agitated speech, [and] so forth, [which] reflect that he was experiencing some sort of agitated condition and a distorted perception of reality." Framing the legal issue, the court stated that

even though an individual may be operating under an impaired or altered perception of reality or other irrational mode of thinking at the time of an incident, the question is whether that condition, the abnormal condition of the mind, the mental disease or defect, however it's termed, whether that condition negated, prevented the formation of the required culpable state of mind, and it is the State's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the required state of mind even though a defendant may be experiencing an abnormal condition of the mind.

[¶ 8] Addressing the pending counts, the court made findings regarding the charge of domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, which was based on Proia's discharge of a firearm within the house where the family member was present. Those findings provided context for the findings relating to a number of the other charges on which the court found Proia guilty. The court stated:

[I]t is clear that [Proia] was experiencing some sort of abnormal condition, distortion of reality[;] however, within whatever he was experiencing in that moment he made some decisions, he took some actions, he was aware I believe of the consequences of those actions.

He believed he was being followed, he believed people were out to get him, he wanted to defend himself, he did what a person might do in a situation where they feel threatened and that is to go get something to defend themselves with and that's what he did, he went and got a gun.

[¶ 9] The court found that the State had proved that during the incident, Proia acted with knowledge that a firearm could "dispel a threat" and could injure or kill someone, and that he discharged the weapon for the purpose of eliminating what he perceived as a threat. The court similarly found that the State had proven the culpable states of mind that constituted elements of the other charges of which the court ultimately found Proia guilty.

[¶ 10] At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a series of concurrent sentences that resulted in five years' imprisonment, with all but twenty-one months suspended, to be followed by four years of probation. Proia appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 11] Each of the charges for which Proia was convicted includes a particular culpable state of mind that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.³ Proia argues on appeal that the court incorrectly interpreted section 38 as that statute applies to the evidence of his mental condition, and that the evidence of Proia's mental abnormality foreclosed any determination that he acted with the culpability necessary to be found guilty of any of the charges.

[¶ 12] We review de novo the trial court's interpretation of a statute. State v. Kendall , 2016 ME 147, ¶ 14, 148 A.3d 1230. Then, "[w]hen determining whether the record contained enough evidence to support a criminal defendant's conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to...