PEOPLE V. OELLETTE 37 A.3d 921 (2011) CASE BRIEF

PEOPLE V. OELLETTE

37 A.3d 921 (2011)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Oellette (D) appealed convictions for reckless conduct in that the court erred in declining to instruct the jury on his justification of self-defense.

FACTS: D was charged with assault; reckless conduct and criminal mischief from an altercation with victim Mike Nadeau. D pleaded not guilty to all counts. The court dismissed the criminal mischief charge pursuant to 15 M.R.S. 891(1) (2011) because D and Nadeau had reached an accord and satisfaction. D claimed that he acted only in self-defense, and requested a jury instruction to that effect for both the assault and reckless conduct charges. Mike Nadeau learned that D was 'riding around' with a fifteen-year-old girl. Nadeau, who was driving around town with a male friend at the time, was upset that D was with the girl. Both Nadeau and his passenger sent text messages to the girl to express their anger, and Nadeau eventually called the girl's cell phone and had a conversation with D during which Nadeau told D that he was 'going to come find' him and 'kick [his] ass.' D brought the girl to her home and started to leave when Nadeau's vehicle crossed D's path. Nadeau followed D 'right on [his] bumper,' and Nadeau and his passenger made obscene gestures toward him. When both vehicles stopped for a red light, Nadeau and his passenger jumped out of their vehicle and approached D's vehicle. D testified: 'I felt scared and threatened because they were two guys against one coming to jump me. They had already made threats to me over the phone.' Neither Nadeau nor his passenger carried any weapons, but D left his vehicle with a baseball bat. D chased Nadeau with the bat and hit Nadeau on his wrist, swung the bat a few times without making contact with anything, used the bat to bash the taillight on Nadeau's truck, and then returned to his vehicle and drove away. D got back in his truck. Nadeau chased D in his vehicle. A short while later, D reported the incident to a police officer and stated that he had acted in self-defense. The court granted D's request for a self-defense instruction as to the assault charge, it reasoned that the justification of self-defense was not applicable to a charge of reckless conduct. D also requested an instruction informing the jury about the out-of-court accord and satisfaction; the court denied this request as well, based on its determination that the accord and satisfaction was not relevant. D was found guilty of reckless conduct, but not guilty of assault. 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

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner