Title: State of Maine v. Christian Averill (affects both 2005 ME 82 and 2005 ME 83)

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

State of Maine v. Christian Averill (affects both 2005 ME 82 and 2005 ME 83)  Download PDF STATE OF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Sitting as the Law Court Dated: November 16, 2005 Docket No. And-03-356 Decision No. 2005 ME 83 STATE OF MAINE v. ORDER OF RECONSIDERATION CHRISTIAN AVERILL Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ. PER CURIAM The State s Motion for Reconsideration is granted insofar as it requests reconsideration of the language in State v. Schofield, 2005 ME 82, ¶ 40, --- A.2d ---, ---, relied on in State v. Averill, 2005 ME 83, ¶ 10, --- A.2d ---, ---. All other portions of the State s Motion for Reconsideration were previously denied by Order dated August 16, 2005. Upon reconsideration, the Court amends paragraph 40 of the Schofield opinion to read as follows: [¶40] On remand, Schofield may be sentenced constitutionally within the zero- to twenty-year range without the need for further factfinding regarding heinousness. If the State recommends a sentence in the upper range, or if the court is inclined to impose such a sentence even in the absence of a recommendation, Schofield must be provided 2 with the opportunity for a sentencing trial before the fact-finder of her choice (i.e., judge or jury). If she selects a jury, at the beginning of the proceeding, the trial judge should instruct the jury as follows: You are being asked to make a decision today that will assist me in sentencing Ms. Schofield who has been convicted of the Class A offense of manslaughter. In imposing sentences, judges are required to look at a number of circumstances concerning the defendant, the victim, and the commission of the crime. One of the circumstances that a jury is required to determine is whether the offense committed by the defendant is among the most heinous crimes committed against a person. The parties will provide information and testimony from which you can evaluate the offense committed by Ms. Schofield and determine whether it is among the most heinous committed against a person. _________________________ ALEXANDER, J., statement of nonconcurrence. Because I do not believe that the original sentencing was affected by any error of law or that any jury trial is required for sentencing, I do not join this amendment order.