Opinion ID: 1958968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence before the Jury

Text: Aside from the trial errors that defendant contends occurred in the course of the first stage of the Superior Court trial, which if established would require at most a new trial, he asserts that in some particulars the evidence before the jury was legally insufficient to support his conviction. He therefore asks to be acquitted. See State v. S.    G.   , 438 A.2d 256, 258 (Me.1981). Our review of the record, however, shows ample evidence to sustain the jury's finding of guilt. The two aspects of the State's proof that defendant challenges as insufficient are the evidence of his state of mind at the time of the murder and robbery, and that of the value of the stolen property. For each of those two elements of the State's proof, we make the inquiry whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any trier of fact rationally could find that element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lovejoy, 493 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Me.1985). The State's evidence relevant to defendant's intent on the night of the crimes is as follows. A friend of defendant's family testified at trial that she and his daughter Marsha visited him after his arrest. He confessed to his daughter at that time that he thought that Maxine Eaton was so terribly unhappy that he had just played God. The fact that the victim was shot at very close range, and the further fact that the bullet passed directly through her heart, furnish an additional strong inference that the murder was intentional. Other evidence in the case, including the theft of the victim's pocketbook and the attempted destruction of some of her personal papers at an old dump, is also suggestive of purposeful activity, particularly with regard to the robbery, and serves to corroborate defendant's admission that he played God. The entire evidence was sufficient to justify the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to kill and rob Maxine Eaton. Similarly, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of the other element of the robbery charge that defendant argues was missing from the State's case; namely, proof that the property taken had some value. For the theft element of robbery as defined in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651(1)(D) (1983), the accused must have exercised unauthorized control over property, which is defined as anything of value. Id., §§ 353(1), 352(1). Suffice it here to note that Miss Eaton's savings account passbooks, found in a parking lot under defendant's car with him sitting in it, fall within the definition of anything of value set forth in section 352(1)(D), as expressly including [w]ritten instruments... representing or embodying rights concerning... personal property....