235 A.3d 854
Me.2020Background
- Victims hired Gregory McLaughlin in December 2016 as a purported general contractor after he represented twenty years’ experience, a crew, and ability to procure subcontractors. Contract called for initial and periodic payments with a mid‑2017 completion date (later revised twice).
- McLaughlin’s on‑site work declined over months; he never produced the promised crew or subcontractors and, by June 27, 2017, had completed at most ~20% of the job.
- The victims paid roughly $80,000 for labor and materials; $10,631 was paid for materials McLaughlin never delivered. Completed work was structurally deficient and had to be removed.
- Superseding indictment charged two counts of theft by deception (Class B and C) and home repair fraud; jury convicted on both theft counts, mistrial on home repair fraud count.
- At sentencing the court merged the theft counts, imposed a seven‑year sentence (all but two years suspended), ordered restitution, and McLaughlin appealed, arguing (inter alia) instructional error (nexus) and insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that deception and intent to deprive must be contemporaneous ("nexus" instruction) | Instruction given was legally sufficient; defendant failed to request or object so cannot complain on appeal | Court should have instructed jury on nexus; omission was prejudicial | No reversible error: McLaughlin waived any challenge by not requesting/objecting and affirmatively agreed to instructions; instructions were adequate |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove theft by deception (deception + intent to deprive) | Evidence permitted reasonable inferences that deception and intent to deprive were contemporaneous or that intent developed later while deception continued (ruse) | Insufficient evidence to show deception and intent existed at the same time; at most breach of contract | Evidence sufficient: jury could infer intent contemporaneous with deception or that intent to deprive arose later amid ongoing deception; conviction affirmed |
| Whether defendant’s conduct was only a breach of contract (not criminal) | Representations, non‑delivery of paid materials, and conduct went beyond mere breach and supported theft by deception | Conduct was civil breach, not criminal theft | Rejected: prior authority and record show contract status does not preclude theft by deception; jury could find deception beyond puffery |
| Whether the State may challenge merger of counts and sentence on appeal | State sought review of merger and sentence as erroneous | N/A (defendant appealed) | Court did not reach State’s sentencing claims because State failed to file a notice of appeal and required authorization; claims forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ouellette, 208 A.3d 399 (Me. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence after jury conviction)
- State v. Hayward, 156 A.3d 734 (Me. 2017) (jury entitled to draw reasonable inferences; review in light most favorable to State)
- State v. Degennaro, 46 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2012) (contract between parties does not preclude theft by deception; fact‑specific inquiry)
- State v. Berube, 185 A.2d 900 (Me. 1962) (intent usually inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Brasslett, 451 A.2d 890 (Me. 1982) (theory that deception continuing after an initial promise can support theft by deception)