Opinion ID: 2108624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Haberski does not dispute the fact that he was the person who killed the victim. Instead, he argues on appeal that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to permit the jury rationally to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed a mental state sufficient to support a murder verdict. He contends that his prodigious intake of drugs either rendered him incapable of forming the requisite culpable state of mind, see 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A) (Supp.1980), or resulted in his intoxication which, he argues, compelled a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a culpable state of mind. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58-A(1) (Supp.1980). [3] At trial, one psychiatrist testified that when Haberski killed the victim he (1) was suffering from chronic cocaine abuse, (2) was intoxicated, though not significantly, by cocaine, and (3) suffered an organic delusional syndrome. He said that Haberski's ingestion of cocaine moderately impaired his ability to control his impulses. He also testified that Haberski was the first person he had seen suffering from cocaine intoxication and that he had a hard time believing Haberski's story as Haberski had related it. A second psychiatrist testified that at the time of the killing the defendant was suffering from chronic cocaine abuse and cocaine intoxication and possessed a suggestion of an organic delusional syndrome. When questioned regarding Haberski's state of mind just before he killed the victim, the doctor said, I do not believe his thoughts were formulated clearly .... The doctor also said that he had a gut feeling of [a] certain amount of unease with the story .... As it relates to the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, Haberski's conviction must stand unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, on all the evidence presented no trier of fact rationally could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mahaney, Me., 437 A.2d 613, 621 (1981); State v. Perfetto, Me., 424 A.2d 1095, 1097 (1981); State v. Lagasse, Me., 410 A.2d 537, 542 (1980). In addition to the somewhat equivocal psychiatric testimony, the jury also heard evidence, as related in Part I, supra, that Haberski had previously beaten his wife, and that he had previously told a friend that his marriage to the victim was not working and he was going to get rid of the victim. In addition, there was testimony that after the killing Haberski had commented that he forgot the shovel the day he killed the victim, that the victim deserved it, and that he had been known to do unusual things before and make them work. Finally, the jury also heard evidence that the third and final shot came between five or ten minutes after the first two gunshots, that Haberski fled the scene immediately after the shooting and proclaimed his innocence as soon as he was taken into custody. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, it is clear that the jury could find rationally that when Haberski killed his wife he possessed a mental state sufficient to support a murder verdict. In conclusion, we have carefully examined the entire record before us and all of the arguments raised by the defendant on appeal, and we have found nothing which constitutes reversible error. The conviction must be affirmed. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. McKUSICK, C. J., and GODFREY, NICHOLS, CARTER, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ., concurring.