Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed Gregory D. Smen's convictions for violating a protection from abuse order, terrorizing, and failing to sign a uniform summons and complaint. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, including evidence that Smen contacted his wife in violation of the order and threatened her boyfriend. The court vacated the sentence for terrorizing and remanded for resentencing because probation was not authorized where the victim and defendant were not household or family members.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Smen's conviction for violating a protection from abuse order.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Smen's conviction for terrorizing when the alleged victim did not testify that he actually feared Smen's threat.
- Whether the trial court lawfully could impose probation for Smen's Class D terrorizing conviction when the victim and defendant were not household or family members.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Smen violated the protection from abuse order by contacting his wife after receiving actual notice of the order.
- A terrorizing conviction does not require proof that the victim actually experienced fear; it is sufficient that the natural and probable consequence of the communicated threat was to place the victim in reasonable fear.
- Probation may be imposed following a terrorizing conviction only when the victim and defendant are household or family members under the applicable statutory exception; because Smen and the victim were not household or family members, the probation condition was unlawful.
Key quotations
“Section 210(1)(A), however, does not require that the State prove actual fear on the part of the victim.” (322)
“The statute expressly requires only that the natural and probable consequence of conveying the threat is to create reasonable fear in the victim, whether or not the victim actually experiences such reasonable fear.” (322)
“Judgments of conviction affirmed. Sentences affirmed, except that the sentence on Count II is vacated, and Count II is remanded to the Superior Court for resentencing.” (323)
Factual background
Smen's wife obtained a protection from abuse order prohibiting him from having direct or indirect contact with her, and Smen was present at the protection-from-abuse hearing. After the order issued, Smen called the residence where his wife lived with her boyfriend, spoke with his wife, and told the boyfriend, "Well, now I'm gonna have to kill ya." Later that evening, while being transported to the police station, Smen said he wanted to stop at the residence and beat up his wife and her boyfriend.
Procedural history
The Ellsworth District Court found Smen guilty of violating a protection from abuse order, terrorizing, and failing to sign a uniform summons and complaint. It imposed concurrent sentences for the first two offenses, including one year of probation for terrorizing. Smen appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of conviction, affirmed the sentences except for the terrorizing sentence, vacated that sentence, and remanded for resentencing on Count II.
Remand instructions
The sentence imposed on Count II, the terrorizing conviction, is vacated. The matter is remanded to the Superior Court for resentencing on Count II. The judgments of conviction and all other sentences are affirmed.