113 A.3d 229
Me.2015Background
- Collin R. Giroux pleaded guilty to multiple burglary, theft, criminal mischief, and probation-violation charges and admitted violating prior probation; plea included a 30-month cap.
- Prior to pleading, Giroux underwent forensic evaluations: competency (found competent) and criminal responsibility (noting kleptomania diagnosis and ability to plan and appreciate wrongfulness).
- Defense requested a third (presentence) evaluation and continuation to explore kleptomania as potential mitigation; the court granted the continuance and ordered the evaluation.
- Eight months after pleading, Giroux moved under M.R. Crim. P. 32(d) to withdraw his pleas, arguing the presentence report’s discussion of kleptomania was new evidence that could raise a reasonable doubt as to his intent under 17-A M.R.S. § 38.
- The trial court denied the motion, sentenced Giroux to an aggregate five-year term (with most suspended), and partially revoked prior probation; Giroux appealed the denial and the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Giroux's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether kleptomania evidence in the presentence report constituted new admissible evidence raising reasonable doubt as to intent, warranting withdrawal of pleas | Kleptomania is an "abnormal condition of the mind" under § 38 that could negate required mens rea and thus would have affected his decision to plead | A kleptomania/compulsion diagnosis does not negate mens rea; legislative and case law reject volitional/compulsion defenses | Denial affirmed: kleptomania cannot, as a matter of law, raise a reasonable doubt about intent; no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Newbert, 928 A.2d 769 (Me. 2007) (factors for reviewing denial of plea-withdrawal motions)
- State v. Ellingwood, 409 A.2d 641 (Me. 1979) (inability to control actions is an excuse and does not negate culpable mental state)
- State v. Mishne, 427 A.2d 450 (Me. 1981) (compulsion does not negate conscious purpose or awareness)
- State v. Abbott, 622 A.2d 723 (Me. 1993) (psychiatric testimony about compulsion pertains to insanity, not mens rea; compulsion does not negate requisite mental state)
- State v. Estes, 418 A.2d 1108 (Me. 1980) (abnormal condition of mind may raise reasonable doubt as to mens rea, but nature of abnormality is assessed by its effect on culpable state of mind)