 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stanley2/9/2000
Reporter of Decisions
Argued: October 5, 1999
Albert Stanley appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Washington County, Atwood, J.) on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder. See 17-A M.R.S.A § 201(1)(A) (1983). Stanley contends that the court erroneously excluded (1) evidence of his knowledge of a prior act of violence by the victim which he had offered to support his argument that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger and (2) evidence of the victim's reputation for violence while intoxicated that Stanley sought to introduce for the same purpose. We agree that Stanley should have been permitted to introduce his knowledge of a prior act of violence and, therefore, vacate the judgment.
I. FACTS
A. The Events that Led to the Shooting
Stanley had gone to Mabel McVicar's home at approximately 5:00 p.m. on the night of November 8, 1996, and the couple consumed alcohol there for several hours before leaving to look for friends. They made several stops, including a trip to a store to purchase beer, before arriving at Stanley's home at approximately 12:30 a.m. Stanley and McVicar had argued earlier in the evening and discussed breaking up, but they had settled down and were not arguing with each other at this point in the evening.
For the next three hours Stanley and McVicar consumed beer and welcomed guests in Stanley's home. McVicar became involved in a heated argument with two of the guests that culminated in McVicar throwing them out. Stanley recollected that one of the guests remained for a short period of time and attempted to calm McVicar down but left because McVicar's anger appeared to be increasing.
Stanley testified that after the guests left, McVicar directed her anger at him. He fueled the flames of her anger by telling her she should not have "pick on" their guests. According to Stanley, McVicar then began pushing and hitting him and said she "wanted to kill" him. Stanley asserted he shot McVicar because these events escalated to the point that he believed it was his only option to adequately protect himself.
B. Stanley's State of Mind
Stanley supported his belief that he was in danger by testifying that McVicar was a strong woman who was capable of overpowering him. He testified that although he and McVicar were of similar physical size, his ability to defend himself was diminished by a physical disability. The court also allowed Stanley to testify about his personal knowledge of McVicar's reputation for violence when she consumed alcohol, and about specific acts of violence of which he had been the target. The parties also stipulated that McVicar's blood-alcohol level was .30 percent, nearly four times the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.
Stanley also sought to testify to his knowledge that McVicar, while intoxicated, had stabbed an ex-boyfriend during an argument in 1991 and to have other members of the community testify as to McVicar's reputation for violent behavior while intoxicated to corroborate his own assertion to that effect. The court, however, excluded the 1991 stabbing incident because it found that testimony regarding a specific act of violence would be improper character evidence and excluded the testimony of other members of the community because it found the absence of a proper foundation.
II. DISCUSSION
A person may justify the use of deadly force when that person reasonably believes the other person is about to use unlawful, deadly force against him or another person. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 108(2)(A)(1) (Supp. 1994). In addition, it is an affirmative defense to a prose
Page 1 2 3 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|