Opinion ID: 2065107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Release of the Lobsters

Text: The defendants claim that returning the lobsters to the Atlantic Ocean deprived defendants of physical evidence the inspection and presentation of which might have afforded them a more effective defense. [6] They argue that to convict them solely on the basis of the warden's testimony, that is, without introducing the lobsters into evidence, constitutes a violation of what defendants refer to as the Primary Evidence Rule. They would thus have us hold that the State must introduce the relevant physical evidence wherever remotely possible. [7] The rule in this state is to the contrary. In State v. McLain, Me., 367 A.2d 213, 219 (1976), we held that [i]f the essential elements of a crime are established by testimonial evidence of sufficient force, physical evidence is not a prerequisite for conviction. In McLain, we upheld a larceny conviction over defendant's objection that the allegedly stolen property was not introduced at trial. A similar result was reached in State v. Creamer, Me., 359 A.2d 603 (1976), in the context of a prosecution for receiving stolen goods. Our holdings in McLain and Creamer conform to the view generally accepted in the United States. See 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1181 (Chadbourn rev. 1972). For example, in prosecutions for illegal possession of alcohol, it has been held that the alcohol itself need not be produced. Burney v. United States, 339 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1964); Commonwealth v. Welch, 142 Mass. 473, 8 N.E. 342 (1886); Napolet v. Board of Liquor Control, 119 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio App.1953); Williams v. State, 179 Tenn. 247, 165 S.W.2d 377 (1942). In prosecutions for drunken driving, the defendant's blood-alcohol level can be established without introducing the blood sample. Hayes v. State, 397 P.2d 524 (Okla.Crim.App.1964); Yarbrough v. State, 384 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Crim. App.1964). In the case at bar, the warden measured each lobster twice, repeatedly offered an opportunity to measure the lobsters, and then released them into the ocean. His testimony was sufficient to form the basis for conviction. Had they elected to measure the lobsters themselves, the defendants would have been in a position to call to the warden's attention any mistakes in measurement he may have made. They would also have been able to testify at trial, had they chosen to, regarding the length of the lobsters. There is no evidence that the State released the lobsters in an effort to deprive the defendants of a fair trial. The release was entirely consistent with the Legislature's express goal of preserving the supply of marine life for present and future generations. . .. 12 M.R.S.A. § 3401(5-A). [8] Had some element of bad faith been shown, a different case would be presented. We have reviewed the presiding Justice's other evidentiary rulings and find no merit in defendants' complaints.