214 A.3d 19
Me.2019Background
- On Oct. 8, 2015, Christopher Todd Hall lured a former guardian ad litem (the mediator) to a house by phone, disguised himself (gray wig, walker) and attacked her beside her car with a cane containing a stun device. He attempted to cover her mouth and activated the device multiple times; she sustained burns and pain that took weeks to heal.
- Hall had discussed plans to kidnap persons from a prior family court matter to extort money to flee the country with his children; he fled in a van with an accomplice after the victim fought him off.
- Indictment: aggravated assault (Class B, use of a dangerous weapon), assault (Class C), and two counts of attempted kidnapping (one charging intent to hold for ransom/reward; the other charging secretive restraint). Trial occurred in 2018; Hall represented himself with standby counsel.
- Evidence included the victim’s testimony about injuries and mental effects, a recovered stun-cane tested in a lab (delivered 850–2,000 volts in tests; manufacturer claimed up to 1,000,000 volts), and testimony about Hall’s planning and luring of the victim.
- The jury convicted Hall of aggravated assault, assault, and attempted kidnapping (ransom/reward); the court declared a mistrial on the other attempted-kidnapping count and the opinion remands to formally dismiss that count.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hall's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove aggravated assault based on use of a "dangerous weapon" (stun cane) | Device, as used, was capable of producing death or serious bodily injury (lab results, burns, expert caution)—supports dangerous-weapon element | Device was at most an "electronic weapon" and not a "dangerous weapon" as a matter of law; voltage evidence unreliable | Conviction affirmed: evidence supported that the stun cane, in the manner used, could be a dangerous weapon and satisfy aggravated-assault element |
| Whether evidence sufficed for assault conviction (bodily injury) | Victim suffered physical pain, burns, impairment—meets statutory bodily-injury definition | Denied intent or minimized effects; claimed victim caused marks | Conviction affirmed: sufficient evidence of intentional bodily injury |
| Whether evidence sufficed for attempted kidnapping (intent to hold for ransom/reward) | Hall planned kidnapping for ransom to fund escape; luring and attack were substantial steps | Hall denied kidnapping intent, claimed inability to fit someone in van and other factual defenses | Conviction affirmed: evidence showed substantial steps plus intent and awareness required for attempt |
| Whether jury instructions erred on definitions of "physical health" / "serious bodily injury" and on "dangerous weapon" | Statutory definitions and common-meaning instruction were sufficient; jury could decide whether convalescence meant physical (not merely emotional) | Requested explicit instruction excluding emotional/mental convalescence from "physical health"; argued instruction on dangerous weapon was improper because electronic-weapon statute is distinct | No reversible error: court’s instructions were adequate; "physical health" reasonably left to jury common sense; electronic-weapon statute does not preclude finding an item also a dangerous weapon depending on use |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hansley, 203 A.3d 827 (Me. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Bowman, 611 A.2d 560 (Me. 1992) (interpretation of "extended convalescence")
- State v. Hanaman, 38 A.3d 1278 (Me. 2012) (standards for refusing jury instructions)
- State v. Hastey, 196 A.3d 432 (Me. 2018) (statutory-construction approach to criminal statutes)