State of Maine v. Thomas P. Woodard
2013 ME 36
| Me. | 2013Background
- Woodard operated Green Bee Redemption in Kittery, Maine, and was convicted of theft by deception (Class B) for redeeming out-of-state containers and receiving deposits and handling fees from Maine distributors.
- The Maine bottle bill imposes deposits and handling fees on redemption centers; distributors refund deposits and pay handling fees for containers; centers must ensure containers are originally sold in Maine.
- Evidence showed Woodard's center paid five-cent handling fees to out-of-state container deliverers, with substantial total refunds and handling fees over the period.
- Surveillance and records linked an NH supplier (Reed) and a MA supplier (Prybot) to Woodard, suggesting an ongoing scheme involving non-Maine containers.
- Trial evidence included bank records, telephone records, and testimony from beverage distributors and industry employees about redemption practices and indicators of non-Maine origin.
- Photographs of Prybot’s barn and containers were admitted; prosecutorial closing urged the jury to “send a message”; Woodard sought but was denied a specific mens rea jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for theft by deception | Woodard argues evidence fails to prove deception or value above $10,000 | Woodard contends circumstantial evidence does not prove he intended deception | Sufficient evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admission of acts outside indicted time range | Standring allows time variance if no prejudice | Woodard claims prejudice from March 2010 events outside dates | No reversible error; variance not prejudicial given ongoing scheme |
| Admission of Prybot’s barn photographs | Photographs relevant to container sorting and origin | Cross-examination limited by pretrial agreement; photos unfairly prejudicial | Harmless error; admission not reversible given strong other evidence |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Closing urging jury to “send a message” improperly appealed to public concern | Not prejudicial; argument was brief and jurors were instructed not to treat arguments as evidence | Not sufficient to overturn verdict; no substantial prejudice |
| Requested jury instruction on intent (knowingly deceitful) | Deception requires knowing deceit, not mere negligence or ignorance | Court gave adequate instruction on intent and state of mind | Instruction adequate; defense request properly rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haag, 2012 ME 94 (Me. 2012) (sufficiency and circumstantial evidence standard applied)
- State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188 (Me. 2008) (time variance not fatal absent prejudice; bill of particulars relevance)
- State v. St. Pierre, 1997 ME 107 (Me. 1997) (statute-of-limitations and proof of offense within period)
- State v. Allen, 2006 ME 20 (Me. 2006) (admissibility of other-act evidence to show lack of accident or plan)
- State v. Dolloff, 2012 ME 130 (Me. 2012) (prosecutorial conduct analysis; obvious error test)
- State v. Rega, 2005 ME 5 (Me. 2005) (trial strategy constraints; appellate review of trial-error claims)