Opinion ID: 2356290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Stop

Text: Convicted of violating 29 M.R.S.A. § 2121, [7] defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding that defendant perceived Officer Poisson's signals to stop. We disagree. Defendant supports his contention by pointing to his own testimony and that of his wife, who was a passenger in the car, that neither saw Poisson's flashing lights or heard his signals. There was, however, abundant evidence from which the jury could have inferred otherwise. Defendant admitted that he both heard a siren and saw lights flashing in his rear view mirror before he was initially stopped on Route 111. In that first instance, even without any prior warning that he would be signaled to stop by a police officer, defendant perceived the signal without significant delay. The jury was free to reason that defendant likewise recognized without delay Officer Poisson's signal after that stop. Moreover, because of the inconclusive nature of the initial stop, the jury could readily infer that defendant was expecting further police contact and would be alerted to hear the siren and see the flashing lights, more particularly in view of defendant's admission to an investigating State Police officer in January, 1975, that defendant had noticed that Poisson was following him. Further, Officer Poisson's testimony indicated that he tailgated defendant with siren, flasher and strobe lights activated for a substantial distance. Thus, as to the charge against defendant of failure to stop upon signal of an officer, the evidence presented a conflict properly within the fact-finding province of the jury to resolve.