State v. Standring, Docket: Ken-07-397.
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Saufley |
| Citation | 2008 ME 188,960 A.2d 1210 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Ken-07-397. |
| Decision Date | 16 December 2008 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Ian P. STANDRING. |
v.
Ian P. STANDRING.
[960 A.2d 1211]
Neil L. Fishman, Esq., Yarmouth, ME, for Ian Standring.
Evert Fowle, District Attorney, Alan P. Kelley, Dep. Dist. Atty., Augusta, ME, for the State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ.
SAUFLEY, C.J.
[¶1] Ian P. Standring appeals from judgments of conviction of two counts of gross sexual assault (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(B), (C) (2007); one count of unlawful sexual contact (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(E-1) (2007); and one count of sexual abuse of a minor (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 254(1)(A) (2007), entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Mills, J.) upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of these charges.
[¶ 2] Standring raises three general issues on appeal. The first two do not merit lengthy discussion. Contrary to Standring's contentions, (1) the court did not err or abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, its jury instructions, or its failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte, see M.R. Evid. 403, 412, 609; State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, ¶ 14, 854 A.2d 855, 859; State v. Robinson, 2002 ME 136, ¶¶ 13, 15, 803 A.2d 452, 457-58; State v. Gray, 2000 ME 145, ¶¶ 23-24, 755 A.2d 540, 545; State v. Chasse, 2000 ME 90, ¶ 12, 750 A.2d 586, 590; State v. Lobozzo, 1998 ME 228, ¶ 9, 719 A.2d 108, 110; and (2) we will not consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶ 4, 698 A.2d 521, 522.
[¶ 3] We therefore address only Standring's third contention, specifically that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal of one of the gross sexual assault convictions because the evidence demonstrated that the incident could not have happened within the time range alleged in the indictment. After review of that issue, we affirm the conviction.
[¶ 4] Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts relevant to the time of the crime at issue. See State v. Woo, 2007 ME 151, ¶ 5, 938 A.2d 13, 14.
[¶ 5] There are two young unrelated female victims in this case. One victim was eleven years old at the time of the sex acts committed against her. The State presented evidence that Standring committed two acts of gross sexual assault on the eleven-year-old on different dates in June 2005. In a statement to the police,
Standring admitted to one act of gross sexual assault in June 2005.
[¶ 6] Standring challenges the conviction on the second gross sexual assault because the State's evidence indicated that it happened outside of the period alleged in the indictment. The indictment charged Standring with gross sexual assault on the eleven-year-old "[b]etween October 28, 2005 and December 31, 2005, on at least one occasion."
[¶ 7] At trial, after the close of the State's case, Standring moved for a judgment of acquittal on three of the counts against him, including the count alleging the gross sexual assault of the eleven-year-old "[b]etween October 28, 2005 and December 31, 2005." Regarding that charge, Standring argued:
I'm aware that the dates are not what is controlling, but it appears that from all of the evidence that after June of 2005 there was no contact whatsoever between [the eleven-year-old] and Mr. Standring....
So, I would move for a motion for acquittal of Count 3 [gross sexual assault] ....
[¶ 8] With the State's agreement, the court granted the motion for judgment of acquittal on one of the challenged counts, but the court denied the motion as to another count and the gross sexual assault on the eleven-year-old.
[¶ 9] After the trial, the jury found Standring guilty of all four remaining charges. The court sentenced Standring to twenty-two years in prison, all but fourteen years suspended and twelve years of probation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Olah, Docket: Aro–16–569
...the evidence produced at trial is not fatal to the conviction. See State v. Lyon , 2016 ME 22, ¶ 8, 131 A.3d 918 ; State v. Standring , 2008 ME 188, ¶ 14, 960 A.2d 1210.11 Because we are addressing only the statutory confidentiality provision that the mental health provider asserted, the ru......
-
Standring v. U.S., Civil No. 10–321–B–H.
...application was denied. He simultaneously pursued a direct appeal and the Maine Law Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188, 960 A.2d 1210. Standring also pursued post-conviction relief in the state court pressing in his initial pro se petition five grounds paralle......
-
State v. Waterman, Docket: Oxf-09-417
...to determine whether a jury could rationally have found each element of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188, ¶ 12, 960 A.2d 1210, 1212. Circumstantial evidence, even if contradicted by direct evidence, may support a criminal conviction and the proof n......
-
State v. Woodard, Docket No. Yor–11–611.
...date alleged in the indictment, is not a material variance from the indictment, unless it prejudices the defendant.” State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188, ¶ 14, 960 A.2d 1210;see also State v. St. Pierre, 1997 ME 107, ¶ 14, 693 A.2d 1137 (explaining that the State need not prove that alleged cri......
-
State v. Olah, Docket: Aro–16–569
...the evidence produced at trial is not fatal to the conviction. See State v. Lyon , 2016 ME 22, ¶ 8, 131 A.3d 918 ; State v. Standring , 2008 ME 188, ¶ 14, 960 A.2d 1210.11 Because we are addressing only the statutory confidentiality provision that the mental health provider asserted, the ru......
-
Standring v. U.S., Civil No. 10–321–B–H.
...application was denied. He simultaneously pursued a direct appeal and the Maine Law Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188, 960 A.2d 1210. Standring also pursued post-conviction relief in the state court pressing in his initial pro se petition five grounds paralle......
-
State v. Waterman, Docket: Oxf-09-417
...to determine whether a jury could rationally have found each element of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188, ¶ 12, 960 A.2d 1210, 1212. Circumstantial evidence, even if contradicted by direct evidence, may support a criminal conviction and the proof n......
-
State v. Woodard, Docket No. Yor–11–611.
...date alleged in the indictment, is not a material variance from the indictment, unless it prejudices the defendant.” State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188, ¶ 14, 960 A.2d 1210;see also State v. St. Pierre, 1997 ME 107, ¶ 14, 693 A.2d 1137 (explaining that the State need not prove that alleged cri......