Opinion ID: 2061712
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motions for Acquittal and New Trial

Text: The State relied principally on the testimony of Lucien Therrien, who was an admitted bookmaker. His base of operation was known as the Cue Stick Lounge in Biddeford, and he booked bets on horse races, sporting events, card games and numbers games. Mr. Therrien described his relationship with the Defendant between the dates alleged in the indictment. It was apparent that the Defendant began this association by placing small bets from time to time with Mr. Therrien. They ultimately expanded their association to a point when Mr. Therrien began to lay off some of his larger bets with the Defendant. In describing this, Mr. Therrien used such words as these: Well, larger bets, I would give him what I couldn't handle, myself.       Well, every day that I would call him, I would tell him I would stay with so much and let him take care of the rest. Mr. Goldman, on the other hand, denied this arrangement and said that his only relationship with Mr. Therrien was that of betting with the bookmaker and that he never engaged in the so-called lay off procedure. On October 18, 1967, the Maine State Police conducted a gambling raid on the Cue Stick Lounge and placed Mr. Therrien under arrest. During the progress of the raid one Adrien Boudreau entered this building, having in his possession a brown manila envelope which was taken by the Police and was found to contain $4,083.00. According to Mr. Therrien, he had given Boudreau $5.00 to go to the Defendant's place of business, get this envelope and bring it to him. The money therein contained, Therrien said, was the lay off assumed by the Defendant and required to pay losses he had incurred booking bets on the 1967 World Series. The record discloses these questions and answers: Q (By Mr. Lilley) Why did you send for the money? A To pay the players that had placed bets. Q I see. Weredid you cover bets of this size? A I couldn't. No. Q You couldn't pay bets of this size? A No, I did not have no money to cover bets of that size. Q So this money was to pay bets of this size from Arnold Goldman? A Yes. Mr. Goldman subsequently testified that he did, in fact, deliver the envelope to Mr. Boudreau but he was simply doing this as a favor for a bookie in the Boston area known as Blinkie. He denied in this connection that he acted as a lay off man for Mr. Therrien's World Series bets. The State also introduced other evidence descriptive of the betting activities in the Cue Stick Lounge. They produced as exhibits certain records taken from Mr. Therrien and the analysis of these records by an expert, which indicated that Mr. Therrien in the first nine months of 1967 booked approximately $180,000.00 in various types of bets, of which sporting events composed in excess of $88,000.00. They introduced evidence of a delivery of money in the Boston area to a person known as Beachie and there was evidence from two truck drivers of the delivery of unidentified envelopes at the Defendant's request, particularly to one Edgar Morin. Among the exhibits taken from Mr. Therrien at the time of the raid was a book in which the names Beachie, Edgar Morin and Arnold appear and the State's expert expressed the opinion that this exhibit recorded the bookmaking activity of Mr. Therrien. It is our obligation when ruling on the motions for acquittal and for a new trial to determine from the facts whether there was believable evidence from which the Jury could say beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty. State v. Arsenault, (1956) 152 Me. 121, 127, 124 A.2d 741. As we see it, the Jury could believe the testimony of Mr. Therrien and reject the testimony of Mr. Goldman. If they accepted the testimony of Mr. Therrien, they were justified in concluding that Mr. Goldman acted as a lay off man. So viewed, the verdict of guilty was justified. It is clear to us that the Jury could have concluded that this is not a case in which Mr. Goldman merely placed bets with Mr. Therrien, and either won or lost. The facts support the conclusion that Mr. Therrien and Mr. Goldman had come to an understanding by which Mr. Therrien would obtain bets on horse races and sporting events from among his gambling clientele and book these bets with the agreement that Mr. Goldman would pay off those losses which he had previously promised to assume or, if there were no losses, to accept the winnings on his share of the bets thus booked. The Jury could have concluded that Mr. Therrien would have been unable to carry on his bookmaking activities at the financial level which the facts disclose without the backing of Mr. Goldman. Mr. Therrien's testimony concerning the amount of money he handled on the 1967 World Series, accompanied by the delivery of $4,083.00 to him on the day of the raid is credible evidence in support of this conclusion. We find no error in the ruling of the Justice below on these motions.