State of Maine v. Russell W. Carter
2016 ME 157
Me.2016Background
- In 2014 a Penobscot County elementary school found a 13-year-old student communicating with adult men on a school iPad; a police sergeant took over the account and posed as the girl ("Samantha").
- Russell W. Carter, age 31 and living in Bowdoin, exchanged hundreds of messages with the account in March–April 2014 in which he repeatedly solicited sexual acts and arranged two in-person meetings (April 6 and April 20) but did not appear.
- Carter was charged in June 2014 with solicitation of a child to commit a prohibited act, 17-A M.R.S. § 259-A(1)(A), pleaded not guilty, and proceeded to a bench trial (jury waived) on September 21, 2015.
- At trial Carter moved to dismiss for improper venue and argued the affirmative defense of renunciation; both motions were denied. The court convicted him, imposed a suspended six-month jail term and one year probation, and required sex-offender registry for ten years.
- Carter appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) applying renunciation, (2) improperly denying dismissal for venue, and (3) insufficient evidence of intent to engage in a prohibited act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of renunciation defense | §154 applies only to chapter 7 offenses; renunciation not available here | Renunciation should apply to §259-A solicitation of a child | Held: Renunciation limited to chapter 7 offenses (attempt, solicitation §153, conspiracy); §259-A in chapter 11 — renunciation not available |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to engage in a prohibited act | Messages, arrangements to meet, vehicle details, and insistence on meeting show intent | Because Carter never met "Samantha" in person, there was no proof of intent to engage in a prohibited act | Held: Evidence of arranging meetings, details, and insistence supported a rational inference of intent; conviction supported |
| Venue challenge | State maintained venue was proper | Carter argued improper venue and moved to dismiss | Held: Carter’s venue argument was unpersuasive; court did not reverse on venue (not addressed further) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hayden, 86 A.3d 1221 (Me. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Graham, 113 A.3d 1102 (Me. 2015) (de novo review of statutory application of affirmative defenses)
- State v. Tozier, 115 A.3d 1240 (Me. 2015) (interpret statutes by plain language; consider legislative intent only if ambiguous)
- State v. Woodard, 68 A.3d 1250 (Me. 2013) (inferring intent from defendant’s conduct and communications)
- Joyce v. State, 951 A.2d 69 (Me. 2008) (legislature’s omission of statutory language is persuasive evidence it intended the existing text)