State of Maine v. Lapomarda

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJanuary 4, 2008
DocketCUMcr-07-1846and2126
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Lapomarda (State of Maine v. Lapomarda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Lapomarda, (Me. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

'i T'" j ~ U "'I >.'

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CRiMINAL ACTION "'" -I

!~.,. _. Lj P,OCKET CR-07-IIIO:! 07-li 99~)7-1846~7112? -J AvJ ­ c u.. "'" - \ <..( / It) 00 ca STATE OF MAINE .J \.f \, i \ . . ,;' j'\ i'. , v. ORDER OF JOINDER l..I':>..W UBRAR

FRANK LAPOMARDA

This matter came before the court on the State's request to join the above cases

for a single trial pursuant to M.R.Crim.P. 8(c). The defendant object to the State's request

except as follows. The parties have stipulated that the following cases may be joined: (1)

CR-07-111O and CR-07-1199 may be joined for a single trial and (2) Counts Two, Three

and Four ofCR-07-1846 may be joined for a single trial.

Lapomarda is charged as follows:

CR-07-IIIO, Counts 1 and 2, Gross Sexual Assault of Rhoda Crocker on April 15,2007

CR-07-1199, Count 1, Tampering with a Victim, Rhonda Crocker, on May 9, 2007

Count 2, Violating a Condition of Release on May 9, 2007

CR-07-1846, Count 1, Gross Sexual Assault of Rose LaBarr on April 22, 2002

Count 2, Unlawful Sexual Contact of Rhea Zecchino on January 6, 2007

Count 3, Harassment by Telephone of Rhea Zecchino on January 21, 2007

Count 4, Theft of house keys from Rhea Zecchino on January 21, 2007

CR-07-2162, Count 1, Aggravated Assault of Charlene Rideout on July 27, 2005

Pursuant to M.R.Crim.P. 8(c), the court may order "two or more indictments ...

to be tried together against a single defendant if the crimes should have been joined under

paragraph (a)." Paragraph 8(a) provides for the joinder of two or more crimes "if crimes charged, whether of the same class or different classes, are of the same or similar

character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or

transactions which are connected or which constitutes part of a common scheme or plan."

If the crimes "are connected in any reasonable manner, they are properly joinable." State

v. Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ~ 13, 770 A.2d 630 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The

test in determining whether there is a common scheme or plan is whether the events in

each charge alleged are connected "in time, purpose and modus operandi." Id at ~ 16

(quotation marks and citation omitted).

The defendant is charged with crimes of a similar character that are connected by

a common scheme or plan. Although there are differences in the details in which the

crimes were carried out, the overall purpose and modus operandi are similar. None of the

crimes are alleged to have occurred in exactly the same way because it is alleged that the

defendant adapted his method to get each victim to where he wanted her and his method

varied with the victim's degree of resistance, but in all other ways, the alleged crimes are

strikingly similar. They are connected in purpose and modus operandi.

In the first incident, it is alleged he pulled his car up to the sidewalk on High

Street, near the Eastland Hotel, where Ms. LaBarr was walking and motioned her over to

his car. He took her to Denny's for a meal, then told her he was redecorating his house

and asked her advice getting her to his home, he suggested she stay in one of his

bedrooms, and before the attack when she came out of the bathroom, the defendant was

wearing only a pajama top and his genitals were exposed. Shortly after she went to bed,

he entered the room where she was sleeping and sexually assaulted her twice.

A True CQP~ Attest: do!t~_.r~~ -'-, (1(,.le. k l': " In the second incident, it is alleged that he met Ms. Rideout while he was in his

car and she was on Congress Street near her home on Congress Street. He was to take

her to a bar in the Morrill's Corner neighborhood but on the way suggested that they go

to his house because it was cheaper. Before the sexual attack, the defendant went to his

bedroom and emerged wearing boxer shorts with his genitals protruding. When Ms.

Rideout resisted his advance, the defendant broke her ankle.

In the third incident, it is alleged that the defendant met Ms. Zecchino on Dyer

Street near Dyer's Market when the defendant approached her. The defendant took Ms.

Zecchino to Old Country Buffet for a meal. While at the restaurant, she realized that her

keys were missing. The defendant told Ms. Zecchino that she could stay at his house

since she had no way of getting into her own house. (The lost keys were later found in

defendant's trousers when he was found outside of her home.) When she fell asleep on

the couch, he suggested she go into one of the bedrooms to sleep but would not let her

take her dog into the bedroom. She awoke to find him trying to sexually assault her and

managed to escape into his living room.

And, in the final incident, he drove his car up to the Preble Street Shelter and

engaged Ms. Crocker in conversation. The defendant took Ms. Crocker to Old Country

Buffet for a meal and then took her to Wal-Mart and then drove her around for hours

showing her locations important in his life until he told her it was too late to return to the

shelter and she could stay at his house. At his house, he offered her a bedroom to sleep in,

and several hours after she went to bed, he entered the bedroom where she was, and when

she resisted his sexual overtures, he grabbed her arm and injected a needle into it and

then proceeded to sexually assault her. The ways in which the defendant insinuated himself into their lives and got them

to his house are clearly similar. In each of the cases, he met the victims on the street,

whether at a homeless shelter, on the sidewalk or in the vicinity of a local convenience

store. On the night of each of the assaults, he took the victim to first to a restaurant or bar

and then to his home where the sexual assault occurred. In the case of Rhonda Crocker

and Rhea Zecchino, he took them first to a restaurant followed by a trip to Wal-Mart to

get nightclothes for each of the women. He used or engineered excuses to get the victims

to his house and once there assaulted them. Where there are a great number of

similarities that create a pattern, as here, joinder is appropriate. "That all parts of the

State's 'common scheme or plan' were not present in every incident does not mean that

the 'common scheme or plan' did not exist." State v. Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ~ 12, 770 A.

2d 63, 634.

Joinder of these crimes will conserve judicial resources, avoid duplicative trials,

minimize the public expenditure of funds and provides the defendant with a prompt

resolution of the charges. The trial judge, with proper instructions, can assist the jury in

treating the evidence relevant to each crime separately and distinctly.

The entry is:

Motion for joinder granted and motion for severance denied.

Date: January 4, 208 qzfr Wh~;er ~ Justice, Superior Court STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET CR-07-1110, V' 07-1199,07-1846,07-2126, 08-590 i' !

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF JOINDER FRANK LAPOMARDA

This matter comes back before the court on the defendant's motion for

reconsideration of the order ofjoinder dated January 4, 2008. New counsel, Clifford

Strike, Esquire, now represents defendant. Meg Elam, ADA, continues to represent the

State.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Pierce
2001 ME 14 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
Nagy v. Bistricer
770 A.2d 43 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Lapomarda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-lapomarda-mesuperct-2008.