Opinion ID: 1974989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements made prior to the robbery

Text: The State called as witnesses Norman Estes, Henry Lewis and John Taylor. Their challenged testimony concerning Sabatino's extrajudicial admissions is set forth in the margin. [8] In State v. Elwell, Me., 380 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1977), we noted that [t]he mere fact of a declarant's presence at the time a statement is made is insufficient in itself. . . to warrant a conclusion that the nondeclarant adopted the statement. The proponent of the statement has the burden of demonstrating acquiescence in the statement by the nondeclarant. In the case at bar the trial Justice concluded that the State had met its burden by proving that Anderson acquiesced in the incriminating extrajudicial statements made by Sabatino. We find no error in this ruling. There was far more than the mere presence of Anderson to support the conclusion that he adopted Sabatino's statements that the two of them intended to commit a robbery at the Elm Ice and Coal Co. The State's evidence showed that at all times during which Sabatino's extrajudicial statements were made, Anderson was in close proximity to Sabatino, so that he clearly heard and understood what Sabatino said. Anderson affirmed Sabatino's statements concerning the planned robbery by (1) participating in the coin toss to see who would carry the gun; (2) helping to make masks out of their pullover hats; and (3) leaving with Sabatino in Sabatino's car with the pistol in his possession. These factual circumstances are adequate to distinguish State v. Elwell, supra, and to support the admission of the first set of Sabatino's extrajudicial statements.