Opinion ID: 1959326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: One of defendant's principal contentions on appeal is that the State failed to prove corpus delicti, i.e., that the victim's body was indeed that of Kathy Frost Larson and that the death had been caused by a criminal agency. The State bears different burdens of proof under the corpus delicti rule: first, to present evidence independent of the defendant's own statements adequate to prove both elements of corpus delicti to a probable cause standard and, second, to present evidence, including any post-crime admissions or confessions made by the defendant adequate to establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Libby, 546 A.2d 444, 451 (Me. 1988). Independent of defendant's own statements, the evidence presented by Kathy's mother and friends regarding her plans to be at the Park on Sunday, as well as the physical descriptions of both Kathy and the victim's body provided by a number of witnesses, clearly established to a probable cause standard that the victim was indeed Kathy Frost Larson. Contrary to defendant's contention that the court erred in allowing the State to reopen evidence on this limited issue after having rested, there was no error in the court's decision to allow reopening in the absence of surprise or unfair prejudice to the defense. See State v. White, 460 A.2d 1017, 1023 (Me.1983); M.R.Crim.P. 26(c). There was no such surprise or unfair prejudice resulting from the reopening in this case. [4] Further, the evidence presented by the State independent of defendant's confession, i.e., that the first purchase made by the newlyweds had been a substantial life insurance policy and that Kathy, although she was not a devotee of the outdoors and was afraid of heights, was returning to the Cliffs with defendant at his urging, proved to a probable cause standard that a criminal agency had been involved in Kathy's death. Defendant's own admission that he had pushed his wife off the Cliffs completely satisfies the State's burden of proving both elements of the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. Following his conviction, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. On appeal, he challenges the trial court's denial of these motions and contends that there was insufficient evidence presented to support his conviction. On appeal of a motion for judgment of acquittal in a jury-waived case, the test applied by this court is whether, in view of all the testimony, there was believable evidence from which a single justice, acting as the factfinder, was warranted in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. State v. Dyer, 371 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me.1977). See also Cluchey & Seitzinger, Maine Criminal Practice § 29.4, at 29-8 to -9 (Supp.1989). The standard is the same on review of the denial of a motion for new trial on the same ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. See State v. Hall, 383 A.2d 663, 665 (Me.1978); Cluchey & Seitzinger § 29.5, at 29-12. See also State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). The State presented more than adequate evidence to warrant the Superior Court's belief beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did indeed intentionally or knowingly murder Kathy Frost Larson. Having proved the corpus delicti, the State also proved that defendant had previously outlined a scheme to make money from life insurance through the accidental death of a wife, that he came to Maine actively seeking a wife, that despite the apparent differences in their interests he married Kathy soon after meeting her and immediately took out a substantial life insurance policy on her life with double indemnity in case of her accidental death. Combined with all of the other evidence, defendant's confession that he had in fact pushed Kathy off the Cliffs established beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the State's case for intentional or knowing murder. See id. Finally, we find no merit whatsoever in defendant's argument, made for the first time after his conviction, that the state court lacked jurisdiction to try him because the crime occurred in a national park. There is no question that in October 1987 the State had criminal jurisdiction concurrent with that of the federal government over Acadia National Park. 1 M.R. S.A. § 8 (1989) provides a mechanism, including consent or approval by the appropriate federal authorities, for the cession and retrocession of concurrent legislative jurisdiction between the State and federal government for federal enclaves located within the geographic boundaries of Maine. [5] The state legislature completed all of section 8's requirements in obtaining concurrent jurisdiction over Acadia National Park in 1986, declaring its concurrent jurisdiction in P. & S.L.1985, ch. 94. The federal government completed the process on June 17, 1986, by approving the retrocession of concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 255 (1986). Concurrent jurisdiction over Acadia National Park having been properly obtained by legislative action in conjunction with federal action, the trial court had jurisdiction over defendant in this prosecution. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.