Center wins appeal in high court
Recently, Harry B. Center successfully argued a case in front of Maine’s Law Court (essentially, Maine’s Supreme Court). Significantly, the Maine Lawyers Review profiled the case on the front page of their August 27, 2020 issue. This article is reprinted with permission of Maine Lawyers Review.
Maine Lawyers Review, August 27, 2020
Maine Without Jurisdiction to Prosecute VCR
A majority of a divided Law Court held on August 11, 2020, that Maine criminal courts do not have jurisdiction over the prosecution of a bail violation that occurred in New Hampshire, even though the defendant was on bail conditions in a Maine case. In State v. Sloboda, the Law Court determined that because defendant’s conduct – contact with another individual he was prohibited from contacting according to the bail bond – occurred in NH, there was no basis for the Maine trial court’s exercise of territorial jurisdiction.
In November 2018, Emanuel Sloboda was on preconviction bail for pending Maine criminal offenses. Harry Center of Woodman Edmands Danylik Austin Smith & Jacques, P.A. in Biddeford, represented Sloboda. According to Center, Sloboda had previously been charged with burglary after a dispute about his dog. The bail bond had a condition that he have no direct or indirect contact with a particular individual.
On November 25, defendant had contact with the individual at a store in Rochester, NH. The State of Maine charged Sloboda with a new crime of Violating a Condition of Release. Center stated that all other charges against his client were dismissed prior to trial. The trial court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the VCR offense and, after trial, found Sloboda guilty of the offense.
On appeal, Sloboda argued that Maine was without jurisdiction over the offense. The Law Court described that Maine’s “territorial” criminal jurisdiction is limited to those offense defined in 17-A M.R.S. § 7(1). The majority opinion of the Court, authored by Justice Gorman, focused much of its analysis on § 7(1)(A), which provides jurisdiction when “either the conduct that is an element of the crime or the result that is such an element occurs within this State or has a territorial relationship to this State.”
The Court determined that the “conduct” at issue in this case – contact with a prohibited person – clearly occurred in New Hampshire, so that was not a basis of jurisdiction. The Court further held that the crime of violating a condition of release is somewhat unique in that it does not require proof of any harm or “result” element. Because of this, there was no basis for a Maine court to assume jurisdiction based on a “result,” as defined by the statute.
The dissent, authored by Justice Horton and joined by Justices Jabar and Connors, would have found jurisdiction, but based upon a different subsection of the statute. Section 7(1)(E) of the “territorial” jurisdiction statute provides that a Maine court does have jurisdiction where “[t]he crime consists of the omission to perform a duty imposed on a person by the law of this State, regardless of where that person is when the omission occurs.” The dissent would have held that Sloboda’s conduct of failing to comply with his bail conditions constituted an “omission to perform” his duty of compliance. Thus, they opined that the Maine court would have jurisdiction to hear the prosecution.
Based upon the majority’s holding, Sloboda’s conviction was vacated and the case remanded for dismissal of the indictment. Center said that he and his client were “pleased the conviction was vacated, and thankful that Sloboda is not a felon.” According to Center, prior to this decision, courts were routinely allowing similar VCR charges to go forward, even if the conduct occurred in another state, usually NH.
Center indicated that there was a prior Superior Court decision with identical facts that upheld the Maine court’s jurisdiction. Center noted that there could still be situations where the State could “make a link” between conduct occurring in Maine and NH that would give the Maine criminal court jurisdiction over the offense.
Kathryn Loftus Slattery, Esq., and Andrew E. Berggren, Esq., of the Office of the District Attorney in Alfred, represented the State of Maine. An email to their office was not returned before the filing deadline.