Case Title: State v. Moores

Citation: 

Docket Number: 396-a-2d-1010-0

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 1979-01-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE of Maine v. Gerry MOORES. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. January 24, 1979. Michael E. Povich, Dist. Atty., Bronson Platner (orally), Asst. Dist. Atty., Ellsworth, for plaintiff. Silsby & Silsby by William S. Silsby, Jr., Raymond L. Williams, Ellsworth (orally), for defendant. Before McKUSICK, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ. NICHOLS, Justice. Following a trial in District Court, District Five, the Defendant, Gerry Moores, was adjudged guilty of attempting on October 6, 1977, at Lamoine, Maine, to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 29 M.R. S.A. § 1312(10).[1] Following a timely appeal to the Superior Court, there was on August 25, 1978, a jury-waived trial where the case was submitted upon the written stipulation of certain facts. There the Defendant was again adjudged guilty of this charge. From that judgment of conviction the Defendant appeals to this Court, asserting that he could not be convicted for attempt when the evidence showed the crime had actually been committed. We deny his appeal. The evidence indisputably showed that the Defendant not only attempted to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence, but did in fact so operate it. On October 6, 1977, while admittedly under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the Defendant started an automobile, put it into reverse gear and caused it to move backwards about five feet. This constituted operation, not just an attempt. State v. Sullivan, 146 Me. 381, 384, 82 A.2d 629 (1951). *1011 The Defendant grounds his sole issue on the ancient common law rule of merger, by which the attempt to commit a crime if a misdemeanor, was absorbed into the complete crime, if that crime was a felony.[2]See People v. Stanko, 407 Ill. 624 , 95 N.E.2d 861 (1950).[3] The flaw in the Defendant's argument lies in his failure to recognize that in Maine the common law rule has been abrogated by the express provisions of the Maine Criminal Code. Thus any reliance upon the decisions of courts in jurisdictions which still follow the common law rule is ill-founded. In Maine the Criminal Code defines the offense of attempt as follows: A person is guilty of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability required for the commission of the crime, and with the intent to complete the commission of the crime, he engages in conduct which, in fact, constitutes a substantial step toward its commission. A substantial step is any conduct which goes beyond mere preparation and is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's intent to complete the commission of the crime. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 152(1) (1978 Supp.). No mention of failure in the attempt is made in this specification of the elements of the offense. Failure to consummate the offense is no longer an element of attempt in Maine. This is consistent with recent cases holding that a conviction of attempt is proper even if the completed crime is proved. W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law 452 (1972). Other provisions of the Maine Criminal Code underscore the elimination of failure as an element of attempt. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(5)(B)[4] mandates that neither consecutive terms nor cumulative fines may be imposed for conviction of attempt and the related completed crime. This is a clear, though implicit, recognition that conviction of attempt is permitted under the Maine Criminal Code even when the completed crime is proved. Furthermore, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 13(1)[5] provides for a broad prosecutorial discretion in the selection of which crimes, arising out of the same conduct, to prosecute. It is thus within the discretion of the prosecuting authority to prosecute for the attempt rather than for the completed offense. That this cannot prejudice the Defendant is assured by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 14,[6]*1012 which requires that multiple offenses based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode be joined in one trial if the offenses were known to the prosecuting officer when the first trial commenced. Taken together, these provisions of the Maine Criminal Code provide a consistent statutory pattern premised on the elimination of failure as an element of the crime of attempt. All of these provisions of the Code are made applicable to 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312(10) by the terms of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 6.[7] In the language of the statute last cited, we do not find that the context of the statute defining the crime clearly requires otherwise.[8] The entry will be: Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed. DELAHANTY, J., did not sit.