Source: http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/opinions/2003_documents/03me7Acl.htm
Timestamp: 2014-03-10 14:58:01
Document Index: 613780608

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7458', '§ 7371', '§ 7458', '§ 7458', '§ 7371', '§ 7458', '§ 7458', '§\n7001', '§ 7001', '§ 7001', '§\n7457', '§ 7458', '§ 1', '§ 7458', '§ 2', '§ 7458']

STATE v. CLOUTIER et al.
Skip Maine state header navigation State Search: Agencies | Online Services | Help Page Tools Page Tools Map addresses En español En français English State v. Cloutier
Decision: 2003 ME 7
Docket: Som-01-291
Decided: January 21, 2003 (Revised January 22, 2003)
DONALD CLOUTIER et al.
[¶1] Donald
Cloutier appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count of illegally
transporting deer (Class E), 12 M.R.S.A. § 7458(11) (Supp. 2002), two counts of
guide license violation (Class E), id.
§ 7371-A(1) (1994), and three counts of driving deer (Class E), id. § 7458(10) (Supp. 2002).[1] Herman Hoilman appeals from a judgment
of conviction of two counts of hunting deer after having killed one (Class D), id. § 7458(2) (1994), two counts of guide license violation
(Class E), id. § 7371-A(1), and two
counts of driving deer (Class E), id.
§ 7458(10).[2] Convictions for Cloutier and Hoilman
were entered after a jury trial in Superior Court (Somerset County, Marden,
J.). Cloutier argues that he was entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment
on the charge of illegal transportation. Cloutier and Hoilman assert that the statute defining "driving deer" is
unconstitutionally vague. They
also contend that the jury instructions defining "client" and "guide" were
erroneous and that the evidence on several counts was insufficient. Because we agree that the evidence was
insufficient to find Cloutier guilty on two counts of violation of guide
license, we vacate the judgment against Cloutier on those two offenses, but we
affirm the judgments against Hoilman and the remaining judgments against
[¶2] In the fall
of 1999, the Maine Warden Service conducted an undercover operation at Gentle
Ben's, a hunting lodge owned by Bruce Pelletier, a licensed Maine guide, in
Rockwood Township. Game Warden St.
Saviour, using an alias, stayed at Gentle Ben's during Thanksgiving week in
November 1999. He paid Pelletier
for a week of hunting. He had a
hunting license, which allowed him to hunt bucks without a location restriction,
and a permit to hunt antlerless deer in Wildlife Management District 8.
[¶3] St. Saviour
and a number of people went hunting for deer on November 25 and 26. He testified that Pelletier was his
primary guide. Hoilman, also a
licensed Maine guide, was staying at another lodge owned by Pelletier and was
guiding people at that lodge. Hoilman and one of his clients joined the hunting party on November 25
and 26. At trial, Hoilman
testified that he was acting as a guide for his client on those days, but
denied that he was guiding St. Saviour. Hoilman had killed a buck earlier in the season and, therefore, was not
entitled to hunt deer. Cloutier,
another licensed Maine guide, also hunted with the group on the 25th and 26th,
but he denied that he was acting as a guide. He was employed by Pelletier to drive trucks at the end of
the hunting season, and he testified that hunting from Pelletier's lodge was
part of his compensation for truck driving.
[¶4] On November
25 and 26 the group was hunting in Elm Stream Township in Wildlife Management
District 4. The group
members kept in contact with one another by radio. On November 25, Hoilman and Pelletier told some members of
the group to move through the woods toward other members hunting from the opposite
direction. Following these
instructions, St. Saviour, Cloutier, and two or three others went with
Pelletier, who lined them up approximately 200 yards apart along a road, and
Hoilman took three of the hunters to another location. St. Saviour and those lined up along
the road waited for about fifteen minutes, when Pelletier radioed them to start
moving on a particular compass heading toward Hoilman, which they did. Later that day, Hoilman and Pelletier
had three of the hunters line up on a ridge and push toward other members of
the party. A third and
similar push by members of the group, including Cloutier, toward other members
took place before the group headed back to the lodges for Thanksgiving dinners. On November 25, none of the members of
the hunting party shot a deer. [¶5] On November 26, following Hoilman's suggestion, two people stood at a deer crossing, and the other party members, including St. Saviour and Cloutier hunted toward them from two different directions. Pelletier notified the hunters by radio when to start moving toward the hunters that were standing. After St. Saviour had been walking for a while, Hoilman notified him and the others that he had just jumped a big buck. Pelletier then repositioned some of the hunters so that they were standing at a certain location and the others would move toward those standing. After one of the hunters thought he had wounded a deer, the group members were repositioned again. At Pelletier and Hoilman's direction three of the hunters stood while the others hunted toward them. While the movements of the hunting party on November 25 and 26 were coordinated, the group did not use noisemakers or dogs. Hoilman carried a gun with the group on both days. [¶6] On November
26, St. Saviour killed an antlerless deer that he thought was wounded. He was the only member of the hunting
party who killed a deer. Pelletier and Hoilman gutted the deer, and Pelletier
informed the group that they had to be careful because the deer was killed in
the wrong district. St. Saviour's
permit for an antlerless deer was limited to District 8. Cloutier asked Pelletier if he wanted
help dragging the deer out, but Pelletier declined. Pelletier and St. Saviour dragged the deer out to a road and
placed it behind a blowdown. St.
Saviour testified that at the time the deer was being transported out of the
woods it was not tagged.[3] They met up with the rest of the party
and discussed how to get the deer to District 8, on the other side of the
Golden Road. The group agreed to
put the deer in Cloutier's truck, and Pelletier went to the Golden Road and
radioed the group when it was safe to transport the deer. Cloutier then drove his truck with St.
Saviour and another member of the group as passengers, with the deer, to a
tagging station for District 8.
[¶7] November 27
was the last day of hunting season, and a group which included Cloutier and St.
Saviour, but not Hoilman, went hunting. Pelletier drove St. Saviour, Cloutier and others to the location for
hunting and let the hunters out one at a time along the road. The group had decided to hunt up and
over a ridge toward a lake where two of the hunters would be situated. After they received word on the radio from
Pelletier, they headed over the ridge. No one shot a deer that day.
[¶8] Hoilman and
Cloutier were tried together along with three other defendants, and all five
were found guilty of all offenses that were submitted to the jury.[4] Only Hoilman and Cloutier have appealed
[¶9] Between them
Hoilman and Cloutier were charged with five counts of driving deer. They contend that the statute is
unconstitutionally vague. At the
time of their offenses, the statute read: "A person is guilty of driving deer
if that person participates in a hunt for deer, during which an organized or
planned effort is made to drive deer."[5] 12 M.R.S.A. § 7458(10) (1994). The statutory definition for driving
deer provides: "To 'drive deer or moose' means an organized or planned effort
to pursue, drive, chase or otherwise frighten or cause a deer or moose to move
in the direction of any person or persons who are part of the organized or
planned hunt and known to be waiting for the deer or moose." 12 M.R.S.A. §
7001(6) (1994).
rejected a challenge, on vagueness grounds, to the constitutionality of a
previous statute that made driving deer a crime. State v. Ames, 388
A.2d 94, 96 (Me. 1978). We said
that the statute was "adequate to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair
notice of the kind of conduct the statute prohibits." Id. at 95-96. Although the statute under attack in
this case differs from the statute at issue in Ames, the differences between the two statutes are not
[¶11] A statute survives a vagueness
challenge if it gives ordinary people notice of what conduct is prohibited,
does not require them to guess at its meaning, and does not encourage arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement. State
v. McLaughlin, 2002 ME 55, ¶ 9, 794 A.2d
69, 72. Even more explicitly than
the statute in Ames, the version at
issue here plainly tells people that if they participate in a group hunt and
they organize or plan the hunt so that several people move in a coordinated
fashion toward other members of the hunting party who by predesign are standing
or moving toward the first group, in a planned effort to flush out the deer,
they are hunting illegally. This
is precisely what the evidence demonstrated in this case. Section 7458(10) is not
[¶12] Cloutier requested an entrapment
instruction on the offense of illegal transportation, but the court declined to
give it. An entrapment instruction
is required whenever the evidence generates the issue of entrapment, and the
evidentiary threshold is low. State
v. Audette, 2002 ME 87, ¶ 10, 797 A.2d 742,
745. The issue of entrapment is
generated whenever there is evidence that government action induced the
defendant to commit the crime and that the defendant was not predisposed to
commit the crime. State
v. Rivers, 634 A.2d 1261, 1265 (Me. 1993).
[¶13] Cloutier argued that St. Saviour's act
in shooting an antlerless deer outside of District 8 was unlawful and that by
his unlawful action St. Saviour created a situation in which Cloutier assisted
him in illegally transporting the deer. There was evidence that St. Saviour shot a deer illegally but no
evidence that St. Saviour requested Cloutier to transport the deer. Although St. Saviour may have created
the opportunity for Cloutier to commit the illegal transportation violation, we
have said that more is required for the entrapment defense than providing the
opportunity to commit the crime. State v. Davis, 591 A.2d 1299, 1300 (Me. 1991) (holding that game
warden's placement of plywood deer silhouette after sundown which defendant
shot at was not sufficient inducement for entrapment defense to night
hunting). Because there was no
evidence that St. Saviour induced Cloutier to commit the offense of illegal
transportation, he was not entitled to an entrapment instruction.
[¶14] Cloutier and Hoilman were charged with
knowingly assisting a client in violating the fish and game laws. Cloutier and Hoilman argue that the
court's instructions defining "guide" and "client" were misleading. The court instructed the jury that
"guide means any person who receives any form of remuneration for his services
in accompanying or assisting any person in the fields, forests, or on the
waters or ice within the jurisdiction of the State while hunting, fishing,
trapping, boating, snowmobiling, or camping at a primitive camping area." This definition comes straight from 12
M.R.S.A. § 7001(13) (1994).
[¶15] At the conclusion of the instructions
counsel for the defendants made several requests of the court, including a
request for the definition of "client," and specifically referred to the
definition in State v. Burnham, 654 A.2d
434, 435 (Me. 1995). In response
to Hoilman and Cloutier's request, the court instructed the jury, "You remember
I gave you the definition of a guide and guiding, a guide being defined as a
person receiving a form of remuneration for services in accompanying or
assisting any person while hunting. Thus, a client would be the person who was so accompanied or
assisted." No objection was made
by Hoilman and Cloutier to this instruction, which was essentially identical to
the definition stated in State v. Burnham, 654 A.2d at 435. [¶16] Hoilman and Cloutier point out that
there was no evidence that St. Saviour paid them directly for guide
services. St. Saviour paid
Pelletier. Hoilman and Cloutier
now argue that it was obvious error for the court to fail to further instruct
the jury that a client is one who paid some form of remuneration to the
guide. We find no error in the
instruction as it was given by the court. The statutory definition of guide does not restrict that term to a
person accompanying or assisting others who themselves pay remuneration to the
guide. When a third person pays a
form of remuneration to a guide to assist a client, the guide comes within the
definition of section 7001(13).
[¶17] Hoilman and Cloutier also contend that
the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that they were guiding St. Saviour or members of the hunting party. There was evidence that Hoilman had
been employed for his guiding services by Pelletier during hunting seasons for
the past several years and for the 1999 season. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence that on November
25 and 26, 1999, Hoilman, in the employ of Pelletier as a hunting guide,
accompanied a group of hunters, including St. Saviour, and performed guide
services for the group. Although
Hoilman may have been the primary guide of another hunter and staying at
another lodge, the evidence was that he fully participated in directing and
assisting other hunters. Because
Hoilman directed and accompanied the hunters in driving the deer and because he
was employed by Pelletier to provide guiding services, there was sufficient
evidence to find that Hoilman was guilty of violating his guide license by
knowingly assisting clients to violate the fish and game laws.
[¶18] Cloutier also accompanied several
hunters in driving deer on November 25 and 26.[6] He contends that there was no evidence
that he received any remuneration for guiding services for those dates. Indeed, the only evidence of
remuneration is that he was employed by Pelletier as a truck driver and as part
of his remuneration for truck driving, he was invited to stay at the lodge and
go hunting with Pelletier's hunting party. A guide, however, is a person who receives remuneration "for
his services in accompanying or
assisting any person in the fields . . . while hunting . . . ." 12 M.R.S.A. § 7001(13) (emphasis
added). There was no evidence that
Cloutier received remuneration for guiding services; thus, the evidence was
insufficient to find that Cloutier met the definition of guide on November 25 and
26.[7]
[¶19] Hoilman and Cloutier raised additional
challenges to the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence but
none merit discussion.
Judgments as to
Hoilman affirmed. Judgments of
conviction as to Cloutier on Counts II and III are vacated; judgments as to
Cloutier on all other counts are affirmed.
David W. Crook,
Mitchell, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally)
Bickerman, Esq. (orally)
[1] The complaints allege that Cloutier
committed the illegal transportation on November 26, 1999; the guide license
violations on November 25 and 26; and driving deer on November 25, 26 and 27.
The complaints allege that Hoilman committed a guide license violation, driving deer, and hunting deer after having killed one on November 25 and committed the same three offenses again on November 26.
[3] The deer tag is a portion of the
hunting license. 12 M.R.S.A. §
7457(3) (Supp. 2002). A hunter is
required to attach the tag to the deer in order to possess it or leave it in
the fields or forests prior to registering it. Id. § 7458(6).
[4] Hoilman received consecutive jail
sentences on the two Class D charges of hunting deer
killed one totaling ten days in addition to a $1000 fine plus surcharges on
each charge. On the remaining
Class E offenses the court imposed fines totaling $1500 plus surcharges. Cloutier was sentenced to pay fines
totaling $1000 plus surcharges on the two guide license violations and $1000 in
fines plus surcharges on the other four offenses.
The statute was subsequently amended to read: "Except as provided in subsection 15, paragraph I, a person is guilty of driving deer if that person participates in a hunt for deer, during which an organized or planned effort is made to drive deer." P.L. 1999, ch. 588, § 1 (effective Aug. 11, 2000) (codified as 12 M.R.S.A. § 7458(10) (Supp. 2002)). The referenced subsection and paragraph state: "Notwithstanding subsection 10, 3 or fewer persons may hunt together as long as they do not use noisemaking devices." Id. § 2 (codified as 12 M.R.S.A. § 7458(15)(I) (Supp. 2002)).
[6] Although Cloutier was charged with driving deer on November 27, he
was not charged with knowingly assisting a client to violate the fish and game
laws on that date.
[7] In its brief, the State argues that
both Hoilman and Cloutier were employed by Gentle Ben's as registered Maine
Guides for the 1999 hunting season. Unlike the other factual statements in its brief, the State does not
provide a transcript citation for this allegation, and our independent review
of the transcript does not reveal any support for this assertion.