State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 208 A.3d 399

The Town of Frenchville prepared a rural stretch of Pelletier Avenue for paving by laying geotextile fabric and base/surface gravel; asphalt was not yet installed.
On October 31, 2016, Bruce Ouellette drove a tractor with a harrow over that section, tearing the fabric and mixing gravels and dirt, making the road unsuitable for paving; repair estimated at ~$52,000.
Ouellette was indicted for aggravated criminal mischief (damage over $2,000 to property of another). The parties stipulated at trial that the damaged property was the Town’s geotextile fabric and gravel.
The trial court granted a pretrial motion excluding lay testimony about title/ownership of the road (civil litigation over ownership was pending). A jury convicted Ouellette of aggravated criminal mischief.
After trial Ouellette moved for acquittal arguing the fabric/gravel had become fixtures to the roadway and ownership was not proved; the court denied the motion, relying on the parties’ stipulation and other evidence.
At sentencing the court declined to order restitution, accepting the Town’s voluntary acceptance of a deed from Ouellette; the State moved under Rule 35 to correct sentence but did not file a notice of appeal or obtain written AG approval when later arguing the denial of restitution on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence that Ouellette damaged "property of another" for aggravated criminal mischief	State: Evidence and stipulation established the damaged items were Town property and exceeded $2,000	Ouellette: Fabric/gravel became fixtures to the real property and ownership of the road was not established, so State failed to prove "property of another"	Court: Affirmed conviction — parties’ stipulation defined the damaged property; evidence supported jury verdict; defendant’s argument waived by stipulation
Whether the State may challenge the court’s denial of its Rule 35 restitution request on appeal without formal appeal/AG approval	State: Trial court failed to follow statutory requirements (17-A §§1323(2),1325) in declining restitution; sentence allegedly illegal	N/A (procedural defense)	Court: Did not reach merits — State failed to file required notice of appeal and obtain written Attorney General approval under 15 M.R.S. §2115-A, so appellate review of post-trial restitution claim unavailable

State v. Perkins, 199 A.3d 1174 (Me. 2019) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Woodard, 68 A.3d 1250 (Me. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Lockhart, 830 A.2d 433 (Me. 2003) (effect of stipulations and waiver of issues)
State v. Parsons, 626 A.2d 348 (Me. 1993) (State must obtain AG approval and file notice to appeal post-trial orders)
State v. Blakesley, 989 A.2d 746 (Me. 2010) (limitations on State's criminal appeal rights under 15 M.R.S. §2115-A)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (obvious-error standard)