Court Opinion

ID: 9649965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:16:09.607019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:16.351233
License: Public Domain

Webber, J.
(Dissenting)
I cannot agree with the result reached by the court. In State v. Vallee, 136 Me. 432, 444, the allegation of the pretense was simply that the respondent “had the individual right and authority to release.” The court found this allegation insufficient and defective because it failed to indicate directly whether the pretended right and authority arose as a matter of law or as the result of a vote of the county commissioners. The court said at page 446:
“The respondent is entitled to know, not by implication or intendment, but by direct averment, *230whether he is accused of misrepresenting the law or of misstating a fact.”
If no more than an opinion as to a matter of law is expressed, no crime is committed.
The issue in the instant case is whether or not the allegation of pretense meets the test thus imposed. The indictment charges in part that the respondent “in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Biddeford, Maine, did pretend that he was authorized by the City of Biddeford, Maine, to purchase,” and again that the respondent “as Mayor of said City of Biddeford, Maine, * * * was authorized to make such purchase.” While the first quoted portion in its use of the words “was authorized by the City of Biddeford” tends to suggest a vote and delegation of authority and thus a matter of fact, the second quoted portion tends with equal force to suggest that the authority is vested in the Mayor by virtue of his office and thus to assert a matter of law. The allegation of pretense in toto therefore fails to inform the respondent by direct averment and with that clarity which is required by Vallee. I am persuaded that Vallee does no more than to impose reasonable requirements designed to protect a respondent in making his defense and asserting a claim of double jeopardy in event of a later prosecution. I see no occasion for overruling Vallee and would sustain the demurrer.
Tapley, J., joins in this dissent.