Opinion ID: 1924014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Point 2, Sufficiency of Indictment for Breaking Arrest

Text: The reference indictment reads as follows: That on or about the thirty-first day of October, 1967 in the Town of Searsport, County of Waldo, and State of Maine, the above named defendant Rodney A. Harriman, after being then and there placed under arrest by Charles J. Erickson, Jr. for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, did then and there break arrest, the said Charles J. Erickson, Jr. being then and there a police officer duly authorized to make arrests and the said Rodney A. Harriman being then and there in the lawful custody of the said Charles J. Erickson, Jr. Its sufficiency is attacked for two reasons: 1) The authority of the officer is not alleged, and 2) the lawfulness of the arrest is insufficiently pleaded. Appellant premises his criticism of this indictment upon decisions [1] to which we take no exception. All of them, however, turned upon pleading measured by common law standards, the traditional technicalities of which were abrogated by the adoption of our Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure effective December 1, 1965. Presently the charging instrument needs only to plainly, concisely and definitely allege the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Rule 7 M.R.Crim.Proc. An insufficient indictment will not withstand a motion to dismiss but this indictment meets the test and as to it, the appeal is denied.