132 A.3d 863
Me.2016Background
- Christopher Sudsbury sold a single strip of Suboxone to a confidential informant for $25; he was charged with aggravated trafficking of a schedule W drug (Class A) and sentenced to eight years.
- The charged offense required proving the substance sold was "in fact a scheduled drug," specifically a schedule W drug, and that Sudsbury had prior qualifying convictions.
- Neither Suboxone nor its active ingredient buprenorphine is expressly listed in Maine’s statutory drug schedules.
- At trial the State identified the substance as Suboxone (appearance and chemical analysis) but presented no evidence that Suboxone or buprenorphine fell within any schedule W category.
- The State conceded on appeal it failed to prove the element that the sold substance was a schedule W drug; the court vacated the conviction and remanded for entry of judgment of acquittal to avoid double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved the sold substance was a schedule W drug (element of aggravated trafficking) | The sale of a chemically-identified Suboxone strip supports conviction; alternatively, the evidence could support conviction of a lower-schedule offense | No evidence showed Suboxone or buprenorphine fell within schedule W (or any other schedule); element not proven | Reversed: conviction vacated; judgment of acquittal entered because the State failed to prove the statutory schedule element |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnard, 772 A.2d 852 (Me. 2001) (distinguishing insufficiency claims about identity of substance)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (double jeopardy bars retrial after insufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Lane, 495 A.2d 773 (Me. 1985) (preservation of sufficiency challenge via motion for judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Smith, 400 A.2d 749 (Me. 1979) (same)
- State v. Cotton, 673 A.2d 1317 (Me. 1996) (double jeopardy principles in Maine)
- State v. Schofield, 895 A.2d 927 (Me. 2005) (jury factfinding required for sentence-enhancing determinations)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (facts increasing maximum penalty must be found by a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (same)