State v. Hurd
8 A.3d 651
| Me. | 2010Background
- Hurd was charged with manslaughter, aggravated OUI, and OUI after a Bar leaving incident involving Richardson and Bernier; the car belonged to Hurd.
- All three men were intoxicated; the driver at the time of the crash is disputed between Hurd and Richardson; Bernier injured, Richardson killed.
- At trial, the court instructed on voluntary intoxication and, over Hurd’s objection, on accomplice liability for aggravated OUI based on Hurd’s statements suggesting possible driving by Hurd and/or Richardson.
- The jury returned not guilty on manslaughter and not guilty on aggravated OUI, and was discharged.
- Shortly after discharge, jurors sought to discuss the charges; the court reconvened and, over Hurd’s objection, obtained a written verdict finding Hurd guilty as to aggravated OUI as accomplice.
- Hurd moved to reinstate the initial not-guilty verdict on Count II; the court denied, and Hurd appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-discharge jury inquiry violated Rule 606(b) | Hurd | State | Violation; verdict vacated and remanded |
| Whether the accomplice-liability instruction was proper | Hurd | State | Instruction was permissible but ultimately not dispositive |
| Whether the jury could change its verdict after discharge | Hurd | State | Dispositive holding that discharge forecloses reassembly to amend verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Ma v. Bryan, 2010 ME 55 (Me. 2010) (limits on post-discharge jury inquiry under Rule 606(b))
- Taylor v. Lapomarda, 1997 ME 216 (Me. 1997) (jury not discharged; reinstruction and verdict correction context)
- Cyr v. Michaud, 454 A.2d 1376 (Me. 1983) (policy against correcting verdicts after discharge)
- Patterson v. Rossignol, 245 A.2d 852 (Me. 1968) (juror deliberations and verdict reporting policy considerations)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1987) (juror deliberations and Rule 606(b) applicability in criminal cases)
- McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1915) (early rule on prohibiting post-verdict juror testimony)
- Gonzales v. United States, 227 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2000) (post-discharge juror testimony framework)
- Ford v. United States, 840 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1988) (juror statements after trial and discharge prohibition)
- Virgin Islands v. Nicholas, 759 F.2d 1073 (3d Cir. 1985) (post-trial juror statements excluded)
- State v. Nguyen, 2010 ME 14 (Me. 2010) (no unanimity required on principal vs. accomplice theory; theory-unanimity approach)