STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS. STATE OF i':1J1lNE CRIMINAL ACTION CUmb8rla~~, ~s, ~~::~«',? Office DOCKET.~O. CR-08-~1 SUPeRIUR LU,JrH fcJf . ' C U/' l//,/"~)O D~ f ~.J i .•• \ 0" L"J0J .' ,,.. , STATE OF MAINE
RECEIVED v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
SEAN MEEHAN,
Defendant
This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging
him with three counts of furnishing a place "under his control" for minors to possess or consume
liquor in violation of 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081 (l )(B) (2007).1 The State alleges that all of the
charges stem from a party that took place on November 23, 2007 at a residence owned by
Defendant's parents in Portland, Maine.
DISCUSSION
In relevant part, 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081 (l )(B) provides that "a person may not knowingly
[a]llow a minor under that person's control or in a place under that person's control to possess or
consume liquor." Defendant argues that § 2081 (l )(B) violates the Due Process clauses of the
United States Constitution and the Maine Constitution because the statutory element of "~ntljJ" a ~ is not defined in the law and is unconstitutionally vague. 2 In the alternative, he argues ~at t s
constitutional infirmity can only be avoided by defining "control" to mean an owne~~r '~ -< ()
~. ~ Count 1 alleges a Class C offence. The remaining two counts allege Class D crimes. _. c, 2 Defendant has also filed a motion in limine requesting ajury instruction regarding the mea g e term "control" in 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081(1)(B). That is a matter to be decided by the presiding!f justice and is not now before this court. In Defendant's reply to the State's opposition to his m~n dismiss. Defendant notes that the State has not filed an opposition to his motion in limine and "assu lhe Slak\ argUillelll i~ the same wilh re:>lJecllu uulh II1Uliull~.'· Def.\ RelJly all. exclusive possessory interest in the place where the alleged offence occurred. See, Def.'s Reply
to State's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 3. 3
A. Unconstitutionally Vague
A statute is presumed constitutional and the burden is on the challenging party to show its
unconstitutionality. Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150, 152, 180 A.2d 608, 609-10 (1962). In order to
find a statute unconstitutionally vague, a court must find that it "fails to define the criminal
offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is
prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
State v. Falcone, 2006 ME 90, ~ 6,902 A.2d 141, 143 (quoting State v. McLaughlin, 2002 ME
55, ~ 9, 794 A.2d 69, 72). "Where the meaning of a term can be adequately determined by
examining the plain language definition or the common law definition, a challenge under the
sufficient definiteness prong of a due process/vagueness claim will fail." Id. ~ 10, 902 A.2d at
144.
"Any ambiguity left unresolved by the strict interpretation of criminal statutes must be
resolved in favor of the defendant." State v. Nastvogel, 2002 ME 97, ~ 6, 798 A.2d 1114, 1117.
However, there is a limit to this rule of lenity. The First Circuit has held that the rule applies
only if "there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty about the statute." United States v.
Councilman, 418 F.3d 67,83 (lSI Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Muscarello v. United Stat~~, 524 ••.• ......i. ,'1: ...", 3 In his Reply, Defendant argues "[t]o the extent that this Court finds some other definition ofth¥ § statutory terms other than those set forth in Defendant's Motion in Limine, the statute is / ("';: unconstitutionally vague." ld. And, in his motion in limine, Defendant asserts the following: . ~~.g .... ~ '<
The legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature intended that the element of c~ and consequent duty was the same or similar to the common law [duty of care]. In ~~ words, to prove that premises were under a person's control, the State must prove bey~d ~ reasonable doubt that the person owned or was in exclusive possession of the place. In ~e ._ . words, mere residence is not enough. ~~.
Def.'s Motion in Limine at 2 (emphasis added). Defendant may not have.inte~a~d·~o-indude ~or~ t'he "exclusive" here. His proposed jury instruction appended to the motion in limine does-not include"it. ld., Exh. A. ',J. ~.. ~ :.)
2 " ..... ; U.S. 125, 138-39 (1998)) (quotation marks omitted). In Muscarello, the Supreme Court stated
that "[t]he simple existence of some statutory ambiguity... is not sufficient to warrant application
of [the rule of lenity], for most statutes are ambiguous to some degree." Muscarello, 524 U.S. at
138-39. Thus, the rule of lenity "applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be
derived, [a court] can make no more than a guess as to what [the Legislature] intended."
Councilman, 418 F.3d at 83 (quoting Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50,65 (1995)).
Although "control" is not defined in section 2081 (1 )(B), the court and the parties are not
left to guess what the Maine Legislature intended when it promulgated the statute, including the
challenged phrase "a place under that person's control." The statute's legislative history recites
that its prohibition "is limited to occasions when the person has some duty to control the minor,
whether arising from his relationship to the minor or to the premises." L.D. 551, H.P. 454. The
term "control" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "the power or authority to manage, direct,
or oversee," Black's Law Dictionary 143 (2d Pocket Ed. 1996), and in Webster's Dictionary as
"authority or ability to regulate, direct, or influence", Webster's New College Dictionary 246
(2001). Applying these definitions in context, the plain meaning of "control" in the statute is
sufficiently clear. It refers to the power or authority that a person has to manage, direct, oversee,
regulate, direct, or influence matters in a particular place.
B. Common Law <-;. );;, ;:;... ct Drawing upon arguments made in his motion in limine, Defendant alternatively rr(6ve~. c; for dismissal based upon the statute's constitutional infirmity unless the court delines "~~§ to mean that a "person owned or was in exclusive possession of the place [where the~l~ 4
-;>.'
offense occurred] ... [m]ere residence is not enough." Def.'s Motion in Limine at 2. 5 ~: ~'\ (. s:; '. ,-".,,_ . ~~. ;c Cur;"1h:;r;:':,T~ . . ,.' i,;.::;~"'t 4 As noted earlier, although Defendant argues in his motion in limine thatthep'6ssession must b'e(.l· y, "exclusive", his proposed jury instruction does not include the word "exclusive:" De'f:'s 'Motion 'In' ., -,' Lililille, [>..11. A.
3 As a preliminary matter, the court does not agree that exclusivity of possession is a
necessary prerequisite to establish control of a place. See State v. Gellers, 282 A.2d 173 (Me.
1971). In Gellers, the defendant was charged with possessing and having marijuana under his
control. The Law Court stated that "[p]ossession is synonymous with occupied, held, or
controlled" and "possession ...
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS. STATE OF i':1J1lNE CRIMINAL ACTION CUmb8rla~~, ~s, ~~::~«',? Office DOCKET.~O. CR-08-~1 SUPeRIUR LU,JrH fcJf . ' C U/' l//,/"~)O D~ f ~.J i .•• \ 0" L"J0J .' ,,.. , STATE OF MAINE
RECEIVED v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
SEAN MEEHAN,
Defendant
This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging
him with three counts of furnishing a place "under his control" for minors to possess or consume
liquor in violation of 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081 (l )(B) (2007).1 The State alleges that all of the
charges stem from a party that took place on November 23, 2007 at a residence owned by
Defendant's parents in Portland, Maine.
DISCUSSION
In relevant part, 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081 (l )(B) provides that "a person may not knowingly
[a]llow a minor under that person's control or in a place under that person's control to possess or
consume liquor." Defendant argues that § 2081 (l )(B) violates the Due Process clauses of the
United States Constitution and the Maine Constitution because the statutory element of "~ntljJ" a ~ is not defined in the law and is unconstitutionally vague. 2 In the alternative, he argues ~at t s
constitutional infirmity can only be avoided by defining "control" to mean an owne~~r '~ -< ()
~. ~ Count 1 alleges a Class C offence. The remaining two counts allege Class D crimes. _. c, 2 Defendant has also filed a motion in limine requesting ajury instruction regarding the mea g e term "control" in 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081(1)(B). That is a matter to be decided by the presiding!f justice and is not now before this court. In Defendant's reply to the State's opposition to his m~n dismiss. Defendant notes that the State has not filed an opposition to his motion in limine and "assu lhe Slak\ argUillelll i~ the same wilh re:>lJecllu uulh II1Uliull~.'· Def.\ RelJly all. exclusive possessory interest in the place where the alleged offence occurred. See, Def.'s Reply
to State's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 3. 3
A. Unconstitutionally Vague
A statute is presumed constitutional and the burden is on the challenging party to show its
unconstitutionality. Tuttle v. State, 158 Me. 150, 152, 180 A.2d 608, 609-10 (1962). In order to
find a statute unconstitutionally vague, a court must find that it "fails to define the criminal
offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is
prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
State v. Falcone, 2006 ME 90, ~ 6,902 A.2d 141, 143 (quoting State v. McLaughlin, 2002 ME
55, ~ 9, 794 A.2d 69, 72). "Where the meaning of a term can be adequately determined by
examining the plain language definition or the common law definition, a challenge under the
sufficient definiteness prong of a due process/vagueness claim will fail." Id. ~ 10, 902 A.2d at
144.
"Any ambiguity left unresolved by the strict interpretation of criminal statutes must be
resolved in favor of the defendant." State v. Nastvogel, 2002 ME 97, ~ 6, 798 A.2d 1114, 1117.
However, there is a limit to this rule of lenity. The First Circuit has held that the rule applies
only if "there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty about the statute." United States v.
Councilman, 418 F.3d 67,83 (lSI Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Muscarello v. United Stat~~, 524 ••.• ......i. ,'1: ...", 3 In his Reply, Defendant argues "[t]o the extent that this Court finds some other definition ofth¥ § statutory terms other than those set forth in Defendant's Motion in Limine, the statute is / ("';: unconstitutionally vague." ld. And, in his motion in limine, Defendant asserts the following: . ~~.g .... ~ '<
The legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature intended that the element of c~ and consequent duty was the same or similar to the common law [duty of care]. In ~~ words, to prove that premises were under a person's control, the State must prove bey~d ~ reasonable doubt that the person owned or was in exclusive possession of the place. In ~e ._ . words, mere residence is not enough. ~~.
Def.'s Motion in Limine at 2 (emphasis added). Defendant may not have.inte~a~d·~o-indude ~or~ t'he "exclusive" here. His proposed jury instruction appended to the motion in limine does-not include"it. ld., Exh. A. ',J. ~.. ~ :.)
2 " ..... ; U.S. 125, 138-39 (1998)) (quotation marks omitted). In Muscarello, the Supreme Court stated
that "[t]he simple existence of some statutory ambiguity... is not sufficient to warrant application
of [the rule of lenity], for most statutes are ambiguous to some degree." Muscarello, 524 U.S. at
138-39. Thus, the rule of lenity "applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be
derived, [a court] can make no more than a guess as to what [the Legislature] intended."
Councilman, 418 F.3d at 83 (quoting Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50,65 (1995)).
Although "control" is not defined in section 2081 (1 )(B), the court and the parties are not
left to guess what the Maine Legislature intended when it promulgated the statute, including the
challenged phrase "a place under that person's control." The statute's legislative history recites
that its prohibition "is limited to occasions when the person has some duty to control the minor,
whether arising from his relationship to the minor or to the premises." L.D. 551, H.P. 454. The
term "control" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "the power or authority to manage, direct,
or oversee," Black's Law Dictionary 143 (2d Pocket Ed. 1996), and in Webster's Dictionary as
"authority or ability to regulate, direct, or influence", Webster's New College Dictionary 246
(2001). Applying these definitions in context, the plain meaning of "control" in the statute is
sufficiently clear. It refers to the power or authority that a person has to manage, direct, oversee,
regulate, direct, or influence matters in a particular place.
B. Common Law <-;. );;, ;:;... ct Drawing upon arguments made in his motion in limine, Defendant alternatively rr(6ve~. c; for dismissal based upon the statute's constitutional infirmity unless the court delines "~~§ to mean that a "person owned or was in exclusive possession of the place [where the~l~ 4
-;>.'
offense occurred] ... [m]ere residence is not enough." Def.'s Motion in Limine at 2. 5 ~: ~'\ (. s:; '. ,-".,,_ . ~~. ;c Cur;"1h:;r;:':,T~ . . ,.' i,;.::;~"'t 4 As noted earlier, although Defendant argues in his motion in limine thatthep'6ssession must b'e(.l· y, "exclusive", his proposed jury instruction does not include the word "exclusive:" De'f:'s 'Motion 'In' ., -,' Lililille, [>..11. A.
3 As a preliminary matter, the court does not agree that exclusivity of possession is a
necessary prerequisite to establish control of a place. See State v. Gellers, 282 A.2d 173 (Me.
1971). In Gellers, the defendant was charged with possessing and having marijuana under his
control. The Law Court stated that "[p]ossession is synonymous with occupied, held, or
controlled" and "possession ... need not always be exclusive nor need it be actual physical
possession." Gellers, 282 A.2d at 178.
Again drawing upon arguments from his motion in limine, Defendant asserts that the
statutory "duty to control" in 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081(1)(B) is the same or similar to the common
law duty of care. He cites Denman v. Peoples Heritage Bank, Inc., 1998 ME 12,704 A.2d 411;
Quadrino v. Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co., 588 A.2d 303 (Me. 1991); and Erickson v.
Brennan, 513 A.2d 288 (Me. 1986).
In Denman, the Law Court stated that "possession does not require actual title or
ownership." Denman, 1998 ME 12,'; 4, 704 A.2d at 413 (quoting Quadrino, 588 A.2d at 305)
(quotation marks omitted). Rather, "a possessor of land is one who, by occupancy, manifests an
intent to control the land." Id. "Whether a person manifests an intention to control the land.. .is
an issue of fact." Id. Quoting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328E (1965), the Erickson
court defined a "possessor of land" as
(a) a person who is in occupation of the land with intent to control it, (;- _. (b) a person who has been in occupation of land with intent to control it, if no ~ ~ other person has subsequently occupied it with intent to control it, or (~ ~? k?~"'~' (c) a person who is entitled to immediate occupation of the land, if no oth~~ . person is in possession under clauses (a) and (b). W~ ST/-\T:~. :~I::' f ::~;j\i~ Erickson, 513 A.2d at 290. ., "~U~)Fri!()c{ C'(t~t~'~d ,... : ':'~e " . .. ""'" ....\ ,
.,.... ,'"
4 Assuming without deciding that Defendant's common law analysis is correct, it lends
further support to a determination that the meaning of the law is constitutionally sufficient. This
court earlier concluded that the plain meaning of control refers to the power or authority that a
person has to manage, direct, oversee, regulate, direct, or influence matters in a particular place.
In line with the common law principles cited by Defendant, the source of that power or authority
may be a person's ownership, possession or occupation of the premises. There is no ambiguity
here, and the State has the right to develop facts at the trial of this case that Defendant possessed
or occupied the premises owned by his parents and that he was in control of that place when the
minors were allegedly furnished liquor.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that the plain language definition of "control"
is sufficient to permit an ordinary person to understand the law's prohibition against "allow[ingJ
a minor... in a place under that person's control to possess or consume liquor" and to permit the
court to conclude that Defendant's due process/vagueness claim must fail.
Accordingly, the court concludes that 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2081(l)(B) IS not
unconstitutionally vague and the entry is:
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Dated: April 7, 2008
Justice, Superior Court
I .\ I
; i