State v. Crocker
This text of 445 A.2d 342 (State v. Crocker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
David Crocker raises two issues in his appeal from a conviction of criminal threatening, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 209, elevated to a Class C offense by the use of a dangerous weapon, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1252(4). First, Crocker claims that the jury should have been instructed to consider the crime of threatening display of a weapon, 25 M.R. S.A. § 2031, as a lesser included offense. Second., he argues that the evidence was insufficient as to his use of a dangerous weapon. We reject both contentions.
In order to prove the crime of criminal threatening with a firearm the State need not necessarily prove the firearm was displayed in a threatening manner. The Court did not err, therefore, when it refused to submit the crime of threatening display of a weapon to the jury as a lesser included offense. See State v. Bridges, Me., 413 A.2d 937, 944 (1980); State v. Goodall, Me., 407 A.2d 268, 279 (1979). Furthermore, the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined in 17 — A M.R.S.A. § 2(9)(A), includes the threatened use, as well as the actual use, of a firearm. Our review of the record leaves no doubt that the jury was warranted in finding that Crocker threatened to use a pistol and that Crocker’s threat placed the victim in fear of imminent bodily injury.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
445 A.2d 342, 1982 Me. LEXIS 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crocker-me-1982.