State v. Ross

Decision Date05 June 1991
Citation591 A.2d 1308
PartiesSTATE of Maine v. Darrell ROSS.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Neale T. Adams, Dist. Atty., John Pluto, Deputy Dist. Atty., Caribou, for plaintiff.

Mark S. Freme, Freme & Freme, Caribou, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

COLLINS, Justice.

Darrell Ross appeals from his conviction after a jury trial in the Superior Court (Aroostook County, Pierson, J. ) on four counts of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103 (1983 & Supp.1990). He contends the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find that he was the "Darrell Ross" who sold the drugs to the state's confidential informant. We affirm.

Agents of the Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement ("BIDE") arranged four controlled buys in Houlton in February 1990. On each occasion, a confidential informant, Shawn Cummings, would be searched, provided with a certain amount of money, and dropped off near the defendant's house. He would go to the house, buy drugs, and then meet the agents nearby, where he would again be searched and relieved of the drugs and the remaining money. He wore a "body wire" transmitter on each occasion, but the resulting transmissions were unintelligible and were not introduced in evidence.

It is undisputed that Cummings bought marijuana on two occasions, LSD on one occasion, and cocaine on one occasion. It is undisputed that each of the purchases took place at the defendant's house. None of the money provided to Cummings by BIDE was ever recovered. No other eyewitnesses to the transactions testified at trial. After each transaction, Cummings wrote out a statement, which was signed and notarized, detailing the transaction. Each such statement identified the location of the sale as "Darrell Ross's house" and identified the seller of the drugs as "Darrell Ross," and one of the statements related Cummings's extensive history of buying drugs from "Darrell Ross." There was evidence that the house where the transactions occurred had been deeded to the defendant by his father in 1984.

At trial, however, Cummings refused to identify the defendant, stating that the defendant Darrell Ross was "not the Darrell Ross I know"--i.e., the person who had sold him the drugs--although he admitted knowing the defendant. The State thereupon had him refresh his recollection with his earlier notarized statements. Cummings testified that on one occasion, "I asked for some cocaine and the guy told me he'd have to make a phone call and he made a phone call and he said he couldn't get it right then and to come back at 12:30 or 1:00." Cummings testified that he did not see "the guy" make the phone call but when he returned at 3:00 he got the cocaine.

Although the State tried to impeach Cummings with his earlier statements, the court ruled that the statements were not inconsistent with Cummings's trial testimony.

Mark Moody, a Border Patrol agent assigned to BIDE, testified that on the occasion when Cummings purchased cocaine, he observed Cummings, the defendant, and a woman whom he could not identify leave the house; the defendant and the woman got into a car and drove to a store nearby where the defendant used the pay phone on the side of the building. He then got back...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. D'Angelo
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 28 d5 Fevereiro d5 1992
  • State v. Barnard
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 11 d5 Maio d5 2001
    ...defendant negotiated terms of sale for drugs, procured drugs, delivered them, and accepted payment sufficient to convict); State v. Ross, 591 A.2d 1308, 1310 (Me.1991) (affirming conviction based on testimony of officer observing defendant even though only circumstantial evidence as to sell......
  • State v. Deering
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 29 d4 Janeiro d4 1998
    ...credibility of witnesses, and may disregard a witness's testimony entirely if it finds that witness to be incredible. See State v. Ross, 591 A.2d 1308, 1310 (Me.1991). In this case, the court found Cough's testimony to be wholly incredible based on its firsthand observations of his demeanor......

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