 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. THERRIEN5/14/1997
he evidence and would only confuse the jury. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. From the judgment entered accordingly, Therrien appeals.
[ 11] Therrien contends that the court erred by failing to give his requested instruction on voluntary conduct within the purview of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 31(1). We agree.
[ 12] In State v. Case, 672 A.2d 586 (Me. 1996), we stated that " o be voluntary an act must be the result of an exercise of defendant's conscious choice to perform , and not the result of reflex, convulsion, or other act over which a person has no control." Id. at 589 (quoting State v. Mishne, 427 A.2d 450, 458 (Me. 1981)); see State v. Flick, 425 A.2d 167, 171 (Me. 1981) (legal concept of voluntariness pursuant to section 31 distinguishes such conduct from reflex or nonvolitional action). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Therrien, Therrien testified that he did not intend to shoot Reynolds, he did not remember pulling the trigger, and he was surprised that Reynolds was shot. On this evidence, the jury could have concluded that the force applied to the trigger was involuntary.
[ 13] The jury verdict finding Therrien guilty of manslaughter gives no indication whether it was premised on Therrien's criminally negligent or reckless conduct or whether he acted with adequate provocation. In each instance, a determination whether Therrien had voluntarily or involuntarily pulled the trigger of the gun is a relevant factor to be considered by the jury. The jury, after considering all the attendant
The entry is:
Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.
Page 1 2 3 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|