Case ID: a2d_445/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Maine v. David CROCKER.
    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
    Argued May 11, 1982.
    Decided May 18, 1982.
    David M. Cox, Dist. Atty., Margaret Kravchuk, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Bangor, for plaintiff.
    John Wilson (orally), Lincoln, for defendant.
    Before McKUSICK, C. J., and GOD-FREY, NICHOLS, ROBERTS, CARTER and VIOLETTE, JJ.
   MEMORANDUM DECISION.

David Crocker raises two issues in his appeal from a conviction of criminal threatening, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 209, elevated to a Class C offense by the use of a dangerous weapon, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1252(4). First, Crocker claims that the jury should have been instructed to consider the crime of threatening display of a weapon, 25 M.R. S.A. § 2031, as a lesser included offense. Second., he argues that the evidence was insufficient as to his use of a dangerous weapon. We reject both contentions.

In order to prove the crime of criminal threatening with a firearm the State need not necessarily prove the firearm was displayed in a threatening manner. The Court did not err, therefore, when it refused to submit the crime of threatening display of a weapon to the jury as a lesser included offense. See State v. Bridges, Me., 413 A.2d 937, 944 (1980); State v. Goodall, Me., 407 A.2d 268, 279 (1979). Furthermore, the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined in 17 — A M.R.S.A. § 2(9)(A), includes the threatened use, as well as the actual use, of a firearm. Our review of the record leaves no doubt that the jury was warranted in finding that Crocker threatened to use a pistol and that Crocker’s threat placed the victim in fear of imminent bodily injury.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.