Roes v. State
182 A.3d 301
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- In 2015–2016 DNR police investigated two 45-foot houseboats in the Choptank River near Eric Roes’ property: one (the Seagoing boat) tied to his pier (registered to him), the other (Laughing Loon) tied to a tree upriver. Both weighed over 500 pounds.
- Officers and neighbors testified the boats were in a long-term state of disrepair: partially or fully sitting on the river bottom or mud, buckled hulls, water/mud and debris inside, parts falling off, and not operable (the Seagoing lacked an engine).
- Roes admitted ownership of the pier boat and that he had worked on it intermittently; he denied ownership of Laughing Loon and claimed ongoing repair efforts for the pier boat.
- A jury convicted Roes of two counts of abandoning a vessel (Nat. Res. § 8-725.1) and two counts of littering exceeding 500 pounds (Crim. Law § 10-110). Sentences were concurrent six-month terms (suspended) plus probation.
- On appeal, Roes challenged sufficiency of evidence for abandoning a vessel (arguing the pier boat was not “unattended”), sufficiency for littering (arguing boats are not “litter” / not “discarded”), and the propriety of separate sentences for both offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Roes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency to convict for abandoning a vessel (Seagoing boat) | Evidence showed the boat was unattended, in disrepair, hazardous/obstructive and thus abandoned under Nat. Res. § 8-721; credibility issues for repairs were for jury | The boat was tied to his dock, he worked on it, thus not “unattended” under the statute | Conviction upheld: evidence (photos, officer/neighbor testimony) was sufficient; credibility resolved by jury |
| 2. Sufficiency to convict for littering (both boats, >500 lbs) | Deteriorating, disintegrating boats are "discarded materials" and fit the statutory definition of litter; jurors could find disposal occurred | Boats are not the kind of items covered by the litter statute; not shown to be “discarded” | Conviction upheld: statutory definitions and legislative history support treating disintegrating boats as litter; factfinder could infer disposal |
| 3. Legality of separate sentences for abandoning a vessel and littering | The conduct supported separate offenses: abandonment impeded use of waters and breaking apart caused disposal as litter | Separate punishments amount to multiple punishments for the same conduct; unfair absent legislative intent | Sentences for abandoning a vessel vacated and merged into littering sentences under the rule of lenity; remaining judgments affirmed |
| 4. Proper statutory interpretation approach | Legislative history, removal of mens rea requirement, and dictionary definitions support broad readings of both statutes to effect environmental protection | Narrow reading urged for terms like “unattended” and “litter” to avoid criminalizing benign conduct | Court applied plain meaning, legislative history, and dictionary definitions; interpreted statutes broadly for enforcement but merged punishments where legislative intent for multiple punishment was ambiguous |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Grimm v. State, 447 Md. 482 (2016) (sufficiency standard in Maryland)
- Manion v. State, 442 Md. 419 (2015) (appellate deference to jury on credibility and competing inferences)
- Garner v. State, 442 Md. 226 (2014) (rule of lenity and merger where legislature’s intent for multiple punishments unclear)
- Miles v. State, 349 Md. 215 (1998) (principle on which offense merges into the offense with greater maximum penalty)