State of Maine v. Dana P. Lajoie, 154 A.3d 132

Background

On Oct. 31, 2015, game wardens found Dana P. Lajoie in a tree stand with a loaded rifle, deer call, and apples placed at and around the stand; no apple trees were nearby.
Wardens testified Lajoie placed apples to attract deer; Lajoie testified he used apples as scent cover, not to "bait" deer.
Lajoie (pro se at trial) was charged with illegally baiting deer (12 M.R.S. § 11452(1)(A)) and hunting from an observation stand overlooking deer bait (12 M.R.S. § 11452(1)(B)).
The parties agreed the jury instructions would track the statutory language; Lajoie asked to add statutory exceptions (standing crops, normal agricultural operations), which the court included and Lajoie accepted.
The prosecutor in opening and closing argued the statutes aim to "level the playing field" and stressed hunting's importance locally; Lajoie did not object at trial.
Jury convicted Lajoie on both counts; he appealed claiming (1) inadequate mens rea instructions and (2) prosecutorial misconduct from the policy-based remarks.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Lajoie's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions misstated or omitted required mens rea for illegal baiting (§11452(1)(A))	Instruction tracked statute language requiring placement of bait "to entice" deer; that language supplies intent element	Court should have expressly instructed on intent element (mens rea)	Court held no error: statutory phrasing required finding of intent; additional intent instruction unnecessary and could confuse jurors; Lajoie had acquiesced to instructions
Whether jury instructions omitted knowledge/intent element for hunting from an observation stand overlooking bait (§11452(1)(B))	Reading the statute verbatim required finding the stand overlooked foods "known to be attractive to deer," which conveyed the knowledge element	Trial court should have expressly defined or instructed on "knowing or intentional" mens rea	Court held no error: instruction fairly informed jury; no additional mens rea instruction required
Whether prosecutor's statements about purpose of statutes ("level playing field") and hunting's community importance constituted misconduct	Prosecutor argued policy but did not urge conviction to protect community; statements were within argument scope	Statements were improper policy argument and pandering to community values, prejudicial to Lajoie	Court found statements improper but not plain error: defendant failed to object; no reasonable probability statements affected verdict given jury instructions and record evidence
Whether any unpreserved errors rise to obvious error requiring reversal	N/A (State defends trial as fair)	Claims that unobjected-to instructional and prosecutorial errors were obvious and prejudicial	Court applied obvious error standard and concluded Lajoie did not satisfy burden to show plain error affecting substantial rights or trial integrity; judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Haag, 48 A.3d 207 (Me. 2012) (standard for viewing evidence in defendant's favor)
State v. Pabon, 28 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2011) (review of unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims for obvious error)
State v. Fay, 130 A.3d 364 (Me. 2015) (elements of obvious-error review)
State v. Westgate, 148 A.3d 716 (Me. 2016) (jury instruction review in entirety; avoid juror confusion)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (plain-error/obvious-error principles and defendant's burden)
State v. Robinson, 134 A.3d 828 (Me. 2016) (limits on prosecutor argument to facts in evidence)
State v. Fahnley, 119 A.3d 727 (Me. 2015) (curative effect of trial court instructions against emotional or community-protective arguments)