State of Maine v. Rovelli

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 5, 2010
• Docket: SAGap-09-005
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR cou~r~ ?% Sagadahoc, ss. 11 rvq-i - 5 It 6 - Lf/.5 ­

STATE OF MAINE

v. Docket No. SAGSC-AP-09-005

JACOB ROVELLI

Defendant

ORDER

This case presents an appeal by a juvenile defendant from an adjudication of the West Bath District Court, sitting as the Juvenile Court, pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 3402

Background

In December 2008, the State charged the juvenile defendant, Jacob Rovelli, with seven juvenile otlenses. The juvenile defendant denied all allegations, and the petition went to trial before JudgeJ. David Kennedy April 30, 2009. Judge Kennedy found Jacob Rovelli b'Uilty of arson, burglary and misdemeanor criminal mischief, and acquitted him on the remaining counts. Jacob Rovelli filed a timely appeal, and the parties have filed briefs.

Discussion

The sole issue on appeal is stated to be whether dle State's evidence presented at trial was sutlicient to support the convictions. 1 An appeal to dle Superior Court from a juvenile adjudication of dle District Court is on errors of law or abuses of discretion. See 15 M.R.S. § 3105(1). An appeal based on insutliciency of the evidence to support

1 Jacob Rovelli's brier also appears to argue that the District Court found the juvenile defendant 6'Uilly under an incorrectly defined standard of proof. A review of the District Court's oral Endings and conclusions docs not support that suggestion. The District Court articulated the standard of proof as being "beyond a reasonable doubt", and defined the standard as requiring tlle factlinder to be "almost certainly sure, not certain, but certainly far beyond a probability" of a defendant's h'Uilt. Transcript p. 192. There is no cognizable distinction between this phraseoloh'Y and the Law Court's formulation to tlle effect that "before [ajuryj may convict a defendant of a criminal ollense tlle evidence must be suHicient to convince them of the defendant's guilt and tllat the degree of conviction which they must have is a conscientious bclieftllat the charge is almost certainly true." State v. Estes, 418 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Me. 1980) conviction is a valid ground f(:>r ajuvenile appeal. See State v.Joel H., 2000 ME 139, ~13, 755 A.2d 520, 521..

In deciding an appeal based on insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court must view "the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether the trier of fact rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense[s] charged." State v. Pierce, 20061VIE 75, ~16, S99 A.2d SOl, SO,1,. "The fact-finder is permitted to draw all reasonable inferences ii'om the evidence, and exclusively decides the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility to be afforded to the witness." State v. Drewry, 2008 ME 76, P 32,91,6 A.2d 9S1, 991 (quotation marks omitted).

Here, the evidence was sutticient to support the following findings, all of which were made by the District Court:

• That early in the morning of October 28, 2008, several act" of vandalism occurred in the vicinity of Oak Grove Avenue in Bath. These included automobile windshield smashed with a concrete plant pot taken from an a(bacent cemetery; a smashed plate glass window of a Domino's piuA store, also broken with a cemetery plant pot; a tire intentionally set in a cemetery vault that had been broken into, and damage at a nearby school. The evidence also indicated that one of the windows at the pizza store had been opened after the screen was removed.

• A canine otticer investigated the scene with a tracking dog, which led the otlicer from the scene of the vandalism to the door of the apartment where Jacob Rovelli lived. The otlicer concluded, based on her training and experience, that at least one of the culprits was associated with that apartment. The District Court admitted that the tracking evidence did not point to Jacob Rovelli specifically, but also that it narrowed the suspects to "a fairly small universe."

• The police found on the pizza store window a fresh fingerprint that proved to match one ofJacob Rovelli's fingerprints. 'rhe juvenile defendant submitted evidence that he was seen closing a window at the pizza store a week before, but District Court noted that the fingerprint tied to Jacob Rovelli was "fresh" and "conclusively places Jacob at the scene for the Domino's burglary and criminal mischief." Transcript at 193.

• With regard to the arson, the State presented the testimony of a witness to the effect thatJacob Rovelli had admitted being involved in the fire in the cemetery vault. Transcript p. 129-30.

The District Court acquitted the Juvenile Defendant of the school vandalism and damage to vehicle windows, but convicted him on the charges relating to the cemetery vault fire and the burglary and property damage at the building occupied by Domino's Pizza.

2 The prim;-u"y

The appell

The appellant also points out that the witness who testified thatJacob Rovelli acknowledged being involved in setting the fire had made differing statements at different times. However, the District Court plainly found the witness's testimony credible. The District Court could also have decided thatJacob Rovelli's admitted involvement in the cemetery tire was also probative of his involvement in the concurrently caused property damage resulting £i"om a cemetery pot being thrown into the Domino's Pizza window.

The District Court made it clear that it was not assuming thatJacob Rovelli was tlle sole, or even the primary, perpetrator of all of the crimes, but plainly found the State's evidence suflicient to prove guilt at least on an accomplice basis on three of tlle seven charges. Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence is suflicient to support tlle conclusion that the State proved the element<; of arson, burglary and criminal mischief beyond a reasonable doubt. 2

The District Court adjudication and jUdb'lllen~J,.,)"'h

Dated AprilS, 2010 ,l(;//-;:iffZ--tL. X. M. Horton .J ustice, Superior Court

2 The evidence on the burglary charge deserves further discussion. The burglary charge at Count 1, alleged burglary in "a structure of Domino's Pizza." The evidence did not indicate any illegal entry to the Domino's Pizza store itself. Transcript at p. 83. However, the State introduced evidence without objection that an illegal entry was made to vacant space at the re