Opinion ID: 4025411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Murder Convictions

Text: [¶30] Roxanne first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed intentional or knowing murder. We review the evidence, and all reasonable 18 inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the court’s judgment to determine whether the trial court rationally could have found each element of the charged offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Jones, 2012 ME 88, ¶ 7, 46 A.3d 1125. [¶31] A person is guilty of murder if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being or engages in conduct that manifests a depraved indifference to the value of human life that in fact causes the death of another human being. 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A)-(B). “In order to prove the defendant guilty of murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that (1) the victim is dead; (2) the defendant caused his death; (3) the defendant’s conduct was voluntary;8 and (4) the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally.9 Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual, § 6-62 at 6-123 (2016 ed.). 8 Voluntary conduct means “that the defendant’s actions that caused the death were the result of the defendant’s conscious choice and not the result of reflex, convulsion or some other nonvoluntary act. . . .” Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual, § 6-62 at 6-123 (2016 ed.). 9 “A person causes death intentionally if it is that person’s conscious object to cause death. A person causes death knowingly if that person is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause death.” Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual, § 6-62 at 6-123. 19 [¶32] Relying on the law of abnormal condition of the mind10 and self-defense based on mutual physical combat, Roxanne asserts that the court erred because it failed to consider fully those distinguishing factors that raised a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the required culpable state of mind. See 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2015). The flaw in her reasoning is that “merely because there is evidence sufficient to generate an issue does not mean that the [court] is compelled to believe that evidence.” State v. Lagasse, 410 A.2d 537, 542 (Me. 1980). [¶33] Our standard of review requires us to view evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s judgment. See Jones, 2012 ME 88, ¶ 7, 46 A.3d 1125. Here, the court could rationally have found every element of knowing or intentional murder proven beyond a reasonable doubt despite evidence presented that could negate Roxanne’s mental state. First, evidence established that Rick was dead and that Roxanne was responsible for his death. [¶34] Second, regarding Roxanne’s state of mind, the court found, and the record supports, that because Rick sustained so many injuries over what 10 “Evidence of an abnormal condition of the mind may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the required culpable state of mind.” 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2015); See State v. Graham, 2015 ME 35, ¶ 17, 113 A.3d 1102. 20 must have been an extended period of time, “[t]he very nature of those injuries reflect a willfulness and a sense of purpose to inflict serious harm.” The court also found that because Roxanne was emotionally hurt due to Rick’s perceived infidelity, she “became enraged and formed an intention to hurt” him—an intention that she communicated to a neighbor. Finally, the record supports the court’s finding that Roxanne’s actions were taken knowingly. Rick was alive but incapacitated most of the time that the injuries were inflicted as demonstrated by the fact that the neighbors heard no voices or screams; that Rick was still bleeding and hemorrhaging from his injuries and was laying prone; and that Roxanne, an LPN, had sufficient medical knowledge to attend to his medical needs, and even a layperson would be aware that, if unattended, Rick would bleed to death from the injuries that she had inflicted. [¶35] Roxanne’s contentions that, because she did not have a plan to kill Rick, because there was evidence of a mutual physical altercation,11 and because she had several mental health diagnoses, she could not, and did not, have the requisite culpable state of mind to commit knowing or intentional murder are unavailing. We conclude that sufficient evidence existed to permit 11 The court considered but ultimately rejected Roxanne’s affirmative defense of self-defense, stating that there was no properly submitted evidence that generated the issue, and that her use of force, even if she was not the original aggressor, “exceeded the bounds of reasonableness.” 21 a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Roxanne was guilty of knowing or intentional murder.
[¶36] Roxanne also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that she committed depraved indifference murder. We apply the same standard of review and examine the facts in the light most favorable to the court’s judgment to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State proved all of the elements of the charged offense. See id. ¶ 7. [¶37] A defendant may be convicted of depraved indifference murder if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the conduct was voluntary, representing the defendant’s conscious decision; (2) the conduct caused the victim’s death; and (3) when looking objectively, the fact-finder is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was, as the court here stated, so bad, brutal, savage, revolting or shocking, that, although the defendant may not have acted with the actual subjective intent to kill the victim, the fact-finder can nonetheless impute the highest degree of blameworthiness. See State v. Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 39, 915 A.2d 421; see also State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58, 63 (Me. 1981) (“[D]eath-producing 22 conduct will justify a verdict of guilty of depraved indifference murder if a jury could find that [the] conduct was so heinous in the eyes of the law as to constitute murder.” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶38] Citing United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954), Roxanne contends that, as a predicate to all criminal liability, the person must have fair notice that her conduct is forbidden, and, because she suffered from multiple mental health and medical diagnoses, she could not know that her behavior was proscribed. She argues that it is inherent in this predicate that a person’s individual capacities are always a factor when they so significantly and severely deviate from the norm. Contrary to Roxanne’s contention, Harriss establishes an objective standard and requires only that a statute give “a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute.” Id.; see also State v. Flick, 425 A.2d 167, 174 (Me. 1981). No special dispensation for individuals diagnosed with mental health conditions exists in our case law to alter the objective standard we have enunciated, and Roxanne cites none in her brief. Roxanne also argues that the existence of several mental health diagnoses raises more than a reasonable doubt as to her ability to form the requisite intent; however “[t]he 23 offense does not require evidence of a defendant’s subjective state of mind.” Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 38, 915 A.2d 421. [¶39] Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the record supports the court’s finding that Roxanne acted with depraved indifference to human life. Her violence against her husband lasted for several hours, and the litany of the injuries he sustained as recited by the medical examiner, including a fractured hyoid bone, a sliced-open eyeball, and punctured scrotal sac, would lead a rational fact-finder to conclude that Roxanne’s conduct was so outrageous and revolting as to constitute depraved indifference murder. See id. ¶ 39 (stating that “[c]onduct manifests a depraved indifference to the value of human life when it is highly charged with death-inducing potential and demonstrates a total lack of concern that a person may die or suffer as a result of the conduct”).