Opinion ID: 1945411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support a Verdict of Grand as Distinguished from Petty Larceny

Text: The jury found the defendant guilty of grand larceny  that is, larceny of property of a value of more than $500.00. [6] The jury could have found that 13 of the 7' 7 2 × 4s had been individually identified as being among those stolen from Mr. Garside by distinguishing marks and characteristics. Our question then becomes this: Was there a confluence of circumstances sufficiently compelling to sustain a conclusion that at least the greater part of the plywood, 2 × 4s and 2 × 6s had also been stolen from Mr. Garside? State v. Bickford, Me., 308 A.2d 561, 565 (1973). See also State v. Lizotte, Me., 230 A.2d 414 (1967). We must marshall for our examination such circumstances as are presented by the record. Mr. Garside's lumber was stolen June 9. A small pile of lumber appeared at the defendant's site around the middle of May and a larger pile was seen to be present at a later time which the neighbor said was perhaps 5, 6 or 7 weeks before the police arrived on July 7. Outside of some used staging planks, the lumber at defendant's site consisted of plywood, 2 × 4s and 2 × 6s  as did the lumber stolen. The jury could find that Mr. Garside had lost 120 sheets of ½ plywood and that 118 sheets of similar plywood were found five miles away on defendant's excavation. Mr. Garside lost 410 pieces of 2 × 4 and there were 363 pieces of 2 × 4 at the defendant's site. Mr. Garside lost 58 pieces of 2 × 6 in 14' lengths and 103 pieces in 16' lengths; a total of 53 pieces of 2 × 6 in 14 and 16 foot lengths were found at defendant's site. While the quantities of each dimension were not identical, the jury could find probative value in the similarity. Some of Mr. Garside's 2 × 4s bore a certain manufacturer's stamp  so did some of the 2 × 4s at defendant's site. Some 100 of Mr. Garside's 2 × 4s had been cut down to 7' 7  an undisclosed number of 7' 7 lengths were found mixed in with other lumber in defendant's pile and 13 of these bore distinguishing marks and blemishes which had been severed, permitting them to be matched with similar marks and blemishes on the 5 ends which had been sawed off Mr. Garside's 2 × 4s. The jury could also have accepted the police officer's testimony that on the day they seized the lumber the defendant had first told them he had a cancelled check to prove his title to the lumber  which the defendant denied at trial  and that the had later said he got it from a truck driver  an explanation which the jury was entitled to consider inconsistent with his trial explanation. The jurors were entitled to consider the defendant's explanation of his obtaining the lumber from Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. I fill to be implausible and unconvincing. The difficulty in recognizing a particular piece of wood as one's own  in the absence of distinguishing markings  is obvious. It is no doubt largely true that to an observer, as one witness said, Spruce is spruce and fir is fir. . . . However, an owner's inability to recognize each piece as his own does not preclude the jurors concluding that the circumstances surrounding the victim's loss of multiple units of property and the accused's possession of similar multiple units, some of them identifiable, satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that the other unidentifiable units were also stolen from the victim. The Supreme Court of Kansas considered a somewhat similar situation in State v. Callabresi, 135 Kan. 463, 11 P.2d 725 (1932). The defendant was proved to have been in possession of several truck-loads of red wheat which was similar to and which he claimed to have come from the red wheat in his brother's granary. Mixed in with the red wheat was a small quantity of white wheat. The jury could have found from testimony and observation that the grains of white wheat had come from the victim's granary where a small quantity had become mixed with the victim's otherwise unidentifiable red wheat. The defendant gave explanations of the presence of the white grains which were inconsistent with other testimony. The defendant was convicted of grand larceny and the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's claim that, at most, he had been proved guilty of only petty larcency, holding that the jury could properly find that the white grains identified the entire mass as stolen property. In our own case the lumber seized from the defendant by the police was proved to have a value of more than $500.00. The Justice carefully and correctly instructed the jury concerning proof of identity of stolen property and as to the special problem involved when only part of the units claimed to have been stolen can be identified. We conclude from the circumstances we have discussed that the jury could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that not only the 13 identified pieces but also, by inference, the entire mass of lumber was the stolen property of Mr. Garside and that the defendant was the thief. The entry must be: Appeal denied.