STATE V. LINSCOTT
520 A.2d 1067 (1987)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Linscott (D) appealed his conviction from the Superior Court for one count of murder in violation of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, 201(1)(A) (1983) and one count of robbery in violation of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, 651(1)(D) (1983).
FACTS: D and two other men drove from his trailer in Belmont, Maine to the house of a friend, Joel Fuller. Fuller, with a sawed-off shotgun in his possession, joined the others. D drove to the residence of Larry Ackley, where Fuller obtained 12-gauge shotgun shells. Fuller suggested that the four men drive to the house of a reputed cocaine dealer, Norman Grenier of Swanville, take Grenier by surprise, and rob him. D agreed to the plan, reasoning that Grenier, being a reputed drug dealer, would be extremely reluctant to call the police and request they conduct a robbery investigation that might result in the discovery of narcotics in his possession. Grenier had purchased two kilograms of cocaine that day, and that Grenier had been seen with $50,000 in cash. Fuller guaranteed the defendant $10,000 as his share of the proceeds of the robbery. They drove up to Grenier's house. D and Fuller left the car and approached the house. D carried a hunting knife and switchblade, and Fuller was armed with the shotgun. Willey and Colby drove off in D's car and returned later for D and Fuller. Grenier and his girlfriend were watching television in their living room. D and Fuller intended to break in the back door in order to place themselves between Grenier and the bedroom, where they believed Grenier kept a loaded shotgun. The back door was blocked by snow. They walked around to the front of the house. D was to break the living room picture window whereupon Fuller would show his shotgun to Grenier, who presumably would be dissuaded from offering any resistance. D broke the living room window with his body without otherwise physically entering the house. Fuller immediately fired a shot through the broken window, hitting Grenier in the chest. Fuller left through the broken window after having removed about $1,300 from Grenier's pants pocket, later returning to the house to retrieve an empty shotgun casing. They returned to the road and waited behind a bush for the return of D's car. At Fuller's house, they both burned several articles of their clothing. Fuller gave D $500. D was indicted on one count of murder, and one count of robbery. D stated that he had no knowledge of any reputation for violence that Fuller may have had but knew that Fuller was a hunter and had access to guns. D testified that he had no intention of causing anyone's death in the course of the robbery. D was found guilty of robbery and, on a theory of accomplice liability, guilty of murder. The court found that D possessed the intent to commit the crime of robbery, that Fuller intentionally or at least knowingly caused the death of Grenier, and that this murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's participation in the robbery. The court found that D did not intend to kill Grenier, and that D probably would not have participated in the robbery had he believed that Grenier would be killed in the course of the enterprise. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment