Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed Lawrence A. Perry’s convictions arising from an undercover fish-and-wildlife investigation. The court vacated convictions for a guide license violation and hunting without hunter orange because the underlying conduct was not criminalized at the relevant time, and it vacated one loaded-firearm conviction because the accomplice-liability instruction omitted the intent element. The court affirmed the remaining convictions and rejected Perry’s claim that the undercover warden’s conduct was so outrageous as to require dismissal of all charges.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Perry's guide-license conviction could stand when the underlying bear-transportation offense had been repealed before the charged conduct occurred.
- Whether Perry could be criminally convicted for hunting without hunter-orange clothing when that conduct was a civil violation rather than a crime at the time.
- Whether the accomplice-liability instruction was generated by the evidence and correctly stated the required intent element.
- Whether the erroneous accomplice-liability instruction constituted obvious, prejudicial error as to any conviction.
- Whether the undercover warden's conduct was so outrageous that due process required dismissal of the charges.
Holdings
- A guide-license conviction cannot stand when the alleged client conduct that the guide assisted was neither a crime nor a civil violation on the date of the offense because the statutory offense had been repealed.
- A defendant may not be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense for conduct classified by the Legislature as a civil violation at the time of the conduct.
- An accomplice-liability instruction is erroneous if it fails to inform the jury that the defendant must act with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime.
- The erroneous instruction required vacation of Perry's conviction for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle on November 27, 2003, but did not require vacation of the other convictions because the error was superfluous or nonprejudicial as to those offenses.
- The undercover warden's investigative conduct did not rise to the level of outrageous government conduct requiring dismissal of all charges on due-process grounds.
Key quotations
“Because it was neither a crime nor a civil violation to transport a bear into New Hampshire on September 15, 2003, it could not have been a crime for a guide to assist a client in transporting a bear into New Hampshire.” (812)
“We agree with Perry, however, that the instruction was erroneous because it did not state that intent to facilitate the crime is an element of accomplice liability.” (814)
“There is a reasonable possibility that the outcome on this charge would have been different with a correct accomplice liability instruction.” (815)
Factual background
Perry, a licensed Maine guide, was investigated by an undercover Maine warden posing as a client. During bear and deer hunts in 2003, Perry and members of his hunting parties engaged in conduct that led to thirty-two charges, including hunting violations, firearm violations, and alleged assistance to a client in transporting a bear into New Hampshire. A jury convicted Perry of nine offenses, including a guide-license violation, hunting without hunter-orange clothing, and two counts of having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.
Procedural history
Perry was charged in the District Court with thirty-two fish-and-wildlife offenses and pleaded not guilty. The matters were transferred to the Oxford County Superior Court, where a five-day jury trial resulted in convictions on nine counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed six convictions, vacated three convictions, remanded two counts for dismissal, remanded one count for further proceedings, and remanded the affirmed counts for resentencing.
Remand instructions
The guide-license and hunter-orange convictions were vacated and those counts were remanded for dismissal. The November 27 loaded-firearm conviction was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The remaining convictions were affirmed but remanded for resentencing. The judgment and commitment form also needed correction to identify the night-possession count as a Class D offense and the correct offense.