 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. BROOKS4/5/1995
the prior conviction is an essential element of the complaint. Landry v. State, 575 A.2d 315, 317 (Me. 1990).
When a sentence is imposed pursuant to a statutory provision
that provides for an increased maximum sentence, or that limits
the discretion of a sentencing court by requiring a mandatory
minimum nonsuspendable sentence for a second or subsequent
offense, the prior offense or offenses must be alleged in the
charging instrument and proved at trial.
State v. Keith, 595 A.2d 1019, 1021 (Me. 1991). Failure to allege the previous conviction precludes the court from imposing the mandatory minimum penalty set out in section 1312-B(2)(C). Id.
We are unpersuaded, however, that in the circumstances of this case, Brook's sentence must be vacated. Unlike the complaint in Keith, the complaint in this case affirmatively alleges Brook's previous conviction. It is only the date of the prior conviction that is not set out.
M.R.Crim.P. 7(c) provides that " he indictment or the information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." The purpose of rule 7(c) is to "simplify criminal pleading." M.R.Crim.P. 7(c) reporter's notes. "`The complex requirements of common law criminal pleading are now obsolete. Rule 7(c) is designed to simplify indictments by eliminating unnecessary phraseology and requiring a plain, concise, and definite statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.'" Id. (quoting 4 W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1913 (1951)).
Under the modern rules of criminal pleading, "a charging instrument must be interpreted in a common-sense manner and must not be subjected to arbitrary and overly technical tests such as were applied at common law." State v. Snow, 464 A.2d 958, 961 (Me. 1983). A charging instrument is sufficient "`if it contains such plain, concise, and definite allegations of the essential facts constituting the offense as shall adequately apprise a defendant of reasonable and normal intelligence of the act charged, enabling him to defend himself and, upon conviction or acquittal, to make use of the judgment as the basis for a plea of former jeopardy, should
The complaint alleges that Brooks had previously been convicted of OUI and refers to section 1312-B of Title 29, which contains the enhancement provision. Although a charging document cannot rely on a statutory reference alone to establish the offense or an element of the offense, State v. Huntley, 473 A.2d 859, 863-64 (Me. 1984), its citation in the body of the complaint or indictment is relevant in determining whether a defendant of reasonable and normal intelligence will be adequately informed of the act charged to enable him to defend himself. See State v. Coleman, 452 A.2d 397, 399 (Me. 1982); State v. Martin, 387 A.2d 592, 593 (Me. 1978).
In Coleman, we pointed out that a statutory reference in the indictment could aid the defendant, by process of elimination, in determining with which class of burglary he was charged. 452 A.2d at 399. In Martin, we upheld a conviction for OUI even though the charging document did not allege explicitly an essential element of the offense, i.e., that the defendant's operation was of a motor vehicle. In doing so, we considered the fact that the charging document (a uniform traffic ticket) made reference to the statute that made clear that it was motor vehicles that persons under the influence were prohibited from operating, and concluded that all the necessary elements of the offense were contained in the charging instrument by intendment or implication. 387 A.2d at 593; see also Carter, 444 A.2d a
Page 1 2 3 4 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|