Opinion ID: 2679927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lesser Offense Consideration

Text: [¶22] With the underlying conviction vacated, we must next consider whether Lowden can be convicted of a lesser included offense of attempted trafficking in scheduled drugs. Reducing a conviction for a principal offense to a lesser included offense, after determining that the evidence did not support conviction for the principal offense, but would support a finding of attempt to commit the principal offense, is a practice that is constitutionally acceptable. See Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 306 (1996) (noting that appellate courts have “uniformly concluded that they may direct the entry of judgment for a lesser included offense when a conviction for a greater offense is reversed on grounds that affect only the greater offense”); Morris v. Mathews, 475 U.S. 237, 246-47 (1986) (upholding the process of reducing an erroneous judgment of conviction on a greater offense to a lesser included offense unless the defendant can demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted of the lesser offense absent the presence of the greater offense). [¶23] Modification of a judgment of conviction for a principal offense to that of a lesser offense is only available, however, when the lesser included offense 12 is necessarily committed when the greater offense is committed. 17-A M.R.S. § 13-A(2)(A) (2013); State v. Gantnier, 2012 ME 123, ¶¶ 9-10, 55 A.3d 404. Thus, it is necessary to determine whether attempted trafficking of scheduled drugs, 17-A M.R.S. §§ 152, 1103(1-A), is a lesser included offense of trafficking of scheduled drugs, 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(1-A). [¶24] A person may be convicted of trafficking if, as the court instructed the jury here, a person engages in conduct that is intentional or knowing. 17-A M.R.S. §§ 152, 1103(1-A); see 17-A M.R.S. § 35(1)-(2) (2013). However, a person may be convicted of attempt, 17-A M.R.S. § 152(1), only if the person is proved to have “the intent to complete the commission of the crime.” Because Lowden could have been convicted of trafficking based on the jury’s finding that he engaged in knowing, but not intentional, conduct, the crime of attempted trafficking was not necessarily committed when the crime of trafficking was committed. Thus, attempted trafficking is not a lesser included offense of the crime of trafficking. See State v. Huff, 469 A.2d 1251, 1252-54 (Me. 1984) (discussing the attempt-intent issue generally in the context of an attempted murder case). Because attempted trafficking is not a lesser included offense of trafficking, and the evidence does not support the trafficking conviction, we must remand for the entry of a judgment of acquittal. 13 The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remand to the Superior Court for the entry of a judgment of acquittal. ____________________________________________ On the briefs: Thomas J. Connolly, Esq., Portland, for appellant Aaron Lowden Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Jonathan Sahrbeck, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine At oral argument: Thomas J. Connolly, Esq., for appellant Aaron Lowden Jonathan Sahrbeck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State of Maine York County Superior Court docket number CR-2012-555 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY