Court Opinion

ID: 9756284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:20:21.280915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:17.474287
License: Public Domain

WEATHERBEE, Justice
(concurring and dissenting in part).
I dissent only from the order of remand for new trial. The Defendants have been properly convicted of the crime of Larceny. There is only one crime of Larceny and the terminologies of “petty” and “grand” only describe the degree of the crime. State v. Thomes, 126 Me. 163, 136 A. 726 (1927). While the property stolen must be of some value (State v. Pelkey, Me., 238 A.2d 611 (1968)), value is in no other respect an element of the crime. At the time of Defendants’ trial the law’s only other concern with value was whether it was or was not in excess of $100 in order to deter*337mine the limits of punishment. Therefore, it seems to me that the jury verdict of Guilty of Grand Larceny was, in fact, a finding of Guilty of Larceny with a special finding that the value was over $100.
There was no error in the jury’s determination that the Defendants were Guilty of Larceny but the jury erroneously found that the State had proved a value in excess of $100.
The jury has properly found the Defendants’ guilt of Larceny and I do not feel that the State should be required to prove their guilt a second time. Similarly, the State has had its chance to prove that the value was in excess of $100 and has failed and I do not feel that the State should be entitled to a second opportunity to prove this.
I would remand for re-sentence only.