STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. C:R I 1JM-)~EN- I/Lii')'O\\ STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER ON MOTION TO DISNIISS
NATALIE ERICKSON,
Defendant
Before the court is Defendant Natalie Erickson's motion to dismiss the complaint
against her for failure to give notice of the summons or complaint and for failure to
commence prosecution. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
The defendant is charged with one count of operating under the influence, a class
D crime. The Waterville Police Department stopped the defendant on April 28, 2002.
On that date, the defendant was summonsed only for the civil violation of illegal
possession of alcohol by a minor; the defendant was not summonsed for an OUI charge.
The defendant's arraignment date was June 5, 2002.
According to the docket, on May 8, 2002, the defendant entered a waiver for the
illegal possession of alcohol by a minor charge and paid a fine (VI-02-256). On June 5,
2002, the State filed the pending OUI complaint against the defendant (CR-02-1133); the
docket reflects that no uniform summons and complaint was filed. The court issued a
bench warrant on June 10, 2002 because the defendant failed to appear at arraignment
on June 5, 2002, which she had waived on the civil charge. On June 21, 2010, the
defendant, through counsel, filed a motion to recall the warrant. The motion was
1 denied on June 24, 2010. The defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint against
DISCUSSION
1. M.R. Crim. P. 48(b)(l)
The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure allow this court to dismiss a complaint if
there is unnecessary delay. See M.R. Crim. P. 48(b)(l). Rule 48 states:
If there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may upon motion of the defendant or on the court's own motion dismiss the indictment, information, or complaint. The court shall direct whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Id. The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure "are intended to provide for the just
determination of every criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure
simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable
expense and delay./I M.R. Crim. P. 2.
The Law Court has stated that "[t]he purpose of [Rule 48(b)] ensures not only a
criminal defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial, but also furthers important
judicial policy considerations of relief of trial court congestion, prompt processing of all
cases reaching the courts and advancement of the efficiency of the criminal justice
process./I State v. Wells, 443 A.2d 60, 63 (Me. 1982) (interpreting District Court Rule
48(b)) (emphasis in original).2 In this case, more than eight years has passed since the
1 The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint against her and argues that prosecution was not commenced in a timely manner under 17-A M.R.S. § 8. The defendant does not argue that the State's delay deprived her of a right to speedy trial, which is "guaranteed to all criminal defendants by the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of Maine." State v. Steeves, 383 A.2d 1379, 1381 (Me. 1978); U.s. Const. amend. VI; Me. Const. Art. I. § 6. "If there has been a denial of that right, dismissal of the charges is the only possible remedy." Steeves, 383 A.2d at 1381 (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.s. 434 (1973)). The four factors the court should balance in evaluating an alleged denial of the right to a speedy trial are "the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant arising out of the delay." State v. Murphy, 496 A.2d 623, 627 (Me. 1985) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.s. 514, 530-533 (1972)). The defendant in this case did not claim that the State violated her right to a speedy trial. 2 Wells was distinguished by State v. Lemar, 483 A.2d 702,703 n.6 (Me. 1984), which noted that Wells was explicitly limited to the facts. The court in Lemar declined to decide whether the court could dismiss an
2 State filed the OUI complaint against the defendant. On this record, it does not appear
that the defendant had notice of the OUI charge near the time the complaint was filed.
There is no uniform summons and complaint for OUI signed by the defendant? Because
she had resolved the civil charge against her, she did not appear for arraignment on
6/5/02.
"Unreasonable delay in the determination of criminal actions subverts the public
good and disgraces the administration of justice." Id. "A court should exercise its
inherent power to dismiss only when the party bringing the action has failed to fulfill its
duty to the court." See State v. Bowring, 490 A.2d 667, 669 (Me. 1985) (emphasis
origina!).
The entry is
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint IS GRANTED with prejudice.
Date: ! If/; Nancy Mills Justice, Superior Court
action under Rule 48(b) for a delay caused by prosecutorial error. Lemar, 483 A.2d at 705. Wells was also distinguished by State v. Eaton, 462 A.2d 502, 504 (Me. 1983), which dealt with whether the District Court's dismissal of a class C offense was a bar to later prosecution on the same facts in Superior Court. 3 The facts in State v. Hubner are similar to this case. 1987 Me. Super. LEXIS 29 (Me. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 1987). In Huber, the State obtained an indictment on 11/16/84. The defendant was arrested on 10/15/86. Id. at *1. Neither the defendant nor his attorney knew of the indictment until his arrest. The State made no particular effort to locate the defendant after the warrant issued. Id. at *2. The Superior Court found that Rule 48(b) applied only to post-arrest situations because "the rule is designed to prevent delays in bringing a defendant to trial whose life has been disrupted as the result of his arrest." Id. at *12-13. The court relied on the u.s. Supreme Court's interpretation of the analogous federal rule. Id. at *12. However, the Huber court did not appear to address the reasoning in Wells and merely stated that "Rule 48(b) does not seem to apply in the case at hand." Id. at *13. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss after it determined that the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Id. at *11-12. The court did not appear to rely on Rule 48. Id. at *11,13.
3 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. NATALIE L ERICKSON Docket No AUGSC-CR-2010-00686 6979 MAYFLOWER HILL WATERVILLE ME 04901 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 06/21/1982 Attorney: CHRIS NIELSEN State's Attorney: TRACY DEVOLL THE NIELSEN GROUP PO BOX 351 BIDDEFORD ME 04005 RETAINED 06/21/2010
Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E) Filing Date: 06/05/2002
Charge{s)
1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 04/28/2002 WATERVILLE Seq 1197 29-A 2411(1) Class D SELLAR / WAT
Docket Events:
09/22/2010 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL EDI ON 09/22/2010 @ 18:00
TRANSFERRED CASE: SENDING COURT CASEID WATDCCR200201133 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 06/05/2002
Charge (s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 06/05/2002 @ 8:30
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. C:R I 1JM-)~EN- I/Lii')'O\\ STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER ON MOTION TO DISNIISS
NATALIE ERICKSON,
Defendant
Before the court is Defendant Natalie Erickson's motion to dismiss the complaint
against her for failure to give notice of the summons or complaint and for failure to
commence prosecution. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
The defendant is charged with one count of operating under the influence, a class
D crime. The Waterville Police Department stopped the defendant on April 28, 2002.
On that date, the defendant was summonsed only for the civil violation of illegal
possession of alcohol by a minor; the defendant was not summonsed for an OUI charge.
The defendant's arraignment date was June 5, 2002.
According to the docket, on May 8, 2002, the defendant entered a waiver for the
illegal possession of alcohol by a minor charge and paid a fine (VI-02-256). On June 5,
2002, the State filed the pending OUI complaint against the defendant (CR-02-1133); the
docket reflects that no uniform summons and complaint was filed. The court issued a
bench warrant on June 10, 2002 because the defendant failed to appear at arraignment
on June 5, 2002, which she had waived on the civil charge. On June 21, 2010, the
defendant, through counsel, filed a motion to recall the warrant. The motion was
1 denied on June 24, 2010. The defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint against
DISCUSSION
1. M.R. Crim. P. 48(b)(l)
The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure allow this court to dismiss a complaint if
there is unnecessary delay. See M.R. Crim. P. 48(b)(l). Rule 48 states:
If there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may upon motion of the defendant or on the court's own motion dismiss the indictment, information, or complaint. The court shall direct whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Id. The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure "are intended to provide for the just
determination of every criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure
simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable
expense and delay./I M.R. Crim. P. 2.
The Law Court has stated that "[t]he purpose of [Rule 48(b)] ensures not only a
criminal defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial, but also furthers important
judicial policy considerations of relief of trial court congestion, prompt processing of all
cases reaching the courts and advancement of the efficiency of the criminal justice
process./I State v. Wells, 443 A.2d 60, 63 (Me. 1982) (interpreting District Court Rule
48(b)) (emphasis in original).2 In this case, more than eight years has passed since the
1 The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint against her and argues that prosecution was not commenced in a timely manner under 17-A M.R.S. § 8. The defendant does not argue that the State's delay deprived her of a right to speedy trial, which is "guaranteed to all criminal defendants by the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of Maine." State v. Steeves, 383 A.2d 1379, 1381 (Me. 1978); U.s. Const. amend. VI; Me. Const. Art. I. § 6. "If there has been a denial of that right, dismissal of the charges is the only possible remedy." Steeves, 383 A.2d at 1381 (citing Strunk v. United States, 412 U.s. 434 (1973)). The four factors the court should balance in evaluating an alleged denial of the right to a speedy trial are "the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant arising out of the delay." State v. Murphy, 496 A.2d 623, 627 (Me. 1985) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.s. 514, 530-533 (1972)). The defendant in this case did not claim that the State violated her right to a speedy trial. 2 Wells was distinguished by State v. Lemar, 483 A.2d 702,703 n.6 (Me. 1984), which noted that Wells was explicitly limited to the facts. The court in Lemar declined to decide whether the court could dismiss an
2 State filed the OUI complaint against the defendant. On this record, it does not appear
that the defendant had notice of the OUI charge near the time the complaint was filed.
There is no uniform summons and complaint for OUI signed by the defendant? Because
she had resolved the civil charge against her, she did not appear for arraignment on
6/5/02.
"Unreasonable delay in the determination of criminal actions subverts the public
good and disgraces the administration of justice." Id. "A court should exercise its
inherent power to dismiss only when the party bringing the action has failed to fulfill its
duty to the court." See State v. Bowring, 490 A.2d 667, 669 (Me. 1985) (emphasis
origina!).
The entry is
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint IS GRANTED with prejudice.
Date: ! If/; Nancy Mills Justice, Superior Court
action under Rule 48(b) for a delay caused by prosecutorial error. Lemar, 483 A.2d at 705. Wells was also distinguished by State v. Eaton, 462 A.2d 502, 504 (Me. 1983), which dealt with whether the District Court's dismissal of a class C offense was a bar to later prosecution on the same facts in Superior Court. 3 The facts in State v. Hubner are similar to this case. 1987 Me. Super. LEXIS 29 (Me. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 1987). In Huber, the State obtained an indictment on 11/16/84. The defendant was arrested on 10/15/86. Id. at *1. Neither the defendant nor his attorney knew of the indictment until his arrest. The State made no particular effort to locate the defendant after the warrant issued. Id. at *2. The Superior Court found that Rule 48(b) applied only to post-arrest situations because "the rule is designed to prevent delays in bringing a defendant to trial whose life has been disrupted as the result of his arrest." Id. at *12-13. The court relied on the u.s. Supreme Court's interpretation of the analogous federal rule. Id. at *12. However, the Huber court did not appear to address the reasoning in Wells and merely stated that "Rule 48(b) does not seem to apply in the case at hand." Id. at *13. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss after it determined that the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Id. at *11-12. The court did not appear to rely on Rule 48. Id. at *11,13.
3 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. NATALIE L ERICKSON Docket No AUGSC-CR-2010-00686 6979 MAYFLOWER HILL WATERVILLE ME 04901 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 06/21/1982 Attorney: CHRIS NIELSEN State's Attorney: TRACY DEVOLL THE NIELSEN GROUP PO BOX 351 BIDDEFORD ME 04005 RETAINED 06/21/2010
Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E) Filing Date: 06/05/2002
Charge{s)
1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 04/28/2002 WATERVILLE Seq 1197 29-A 2411(1) Class D SELLAR / WAT
Docket Events:
09/22/2010 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL EDI ON 09/22/2010 @ 18:00
TRANSFERRED CASE: SENDING COURT CASEID WATDCCR200201133 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 06/05/2002
Charge (s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 06/05/2002 @ 8:30
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT FTA ON 06/05/2002 WILLIAM R ANDERSON , JUSTICE BAIL BOND - $496.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 06/05/2002 WILLIAM R ANDERSON , JUSTICE WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ISSUED ON 06/10/2002
CERTIFIED COPY TO WARRANT REPOSITORY WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR RECALLED ON 07/23/2010
CERTIFIED COPY TO WARRANT REPOSITORY WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR RETURNED ON 07/26/2010
Party(s) : NATALIE L ERICKSON ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 06/21/2010
Attorney: CHRIS NIELSEN Charge (s): 1 MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/21/2010
TO RECALL WARRANT Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 01/10/2011 NATALIE L ERICKSON AUGSC-CR-2010-00686 DOCKET RECORD Charge(s): 1 MOTION - OTHER MOTION DENIED ON 06/24/2010
TO RECALL WARRANT Charge(s): 1 MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 07/21/2010
MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO RECALL WARRANT Charge (s): 1 MOTION - OTHER MOTION GRANTED ON 07/21/2010
MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO RECALL WARRANT Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 08/17/2010 @ 1:00
Charge (s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 08/17/2010 RICHARD MULHERN, JUDGE Defendant Present in Court
DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ON 07/23/2010
Charge (s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/17/2010
TRIAL - BENCH SCHEDULED FOR 09/28/2010 @ 8:30
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL TRIAL - BENCH NOT HELD ON 09/22/2010
TRIAL - BENCH NOTICE SENT ON 08/24/2010
Charge (s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/13/2010
Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL GRANTED ON 09/22/2010
Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURy TRIAL REQUESTED ON 09/02/2010
Charge (s): 1 FINDING - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL TRANSFERRED ON 09/22/2010
AUGSC 09/30/2010 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL RECVD BY COURT ON 09/28/2010
WATDCCR20021133 09/30/2010 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS SCHEDULED FOR 11/02/2010 @ 1:15
Page 2 of 3 Printed on: 01/10/2011 NATALIE L ERICKSON AUGSC-CR-2010-00686 DOCKET RECORD NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/01/2010 MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 11/01/2010
MOTION TO EXCUSE DEFENDANT FROM THE CALL OF THE DOCKET 11/02/2010 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS CONTINUED ON 11/02/2010 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE 12/13/2010 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - DOCKET CALL SCHEDULED FOR 01/04/2011 @ 10:15
12/21/2010 MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 12/21/2010
REQUEST TO EXCUSE DEFENDANT FROM CALL OF THE DOCKET. 12/29/2010 MOTION - OTHER MOTION GRANTED ON 12/22/2010 ROBERT E MURRAY JR, JUSTICE REQUEST TO EXCUSE DEFENDANT FROM CALL OF THE DOCKET. 01/04/2011 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/03/2011
Attorney: CHRIS NIELSEN 01/10/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - DOCKET CALL NOT HELD ON 01/04/2011
01/10/2011 ORDER - COURT ORDER FILED ON 01/04/2011 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS: THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. 01/10/2011 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 01/04/2011
01/10/2011 Charge(s): 1 FINDING - DISMISSED BY COURT ENTERED BY COURT ON 01/04/2011 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE
A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk
page 3 of 3 Printed on: 01/10/2011