Skip Maine state header navigation
2005 ME 82 - State v. Schofield
STATE OF MAINE
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Docket
No. And-03-356
Sitting as the Law Court Decision
No. 2005 ME 83
Dated:
November 16, 2005
STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER
OF
RECONSIDERATION
CHRISTIAN AVERILL
Panel: SAUFLEY,
C.J., and CLIFFORD, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
PER CURIAM
The
State's Motion for Reconsideration is granted insofar as it requests
reconsideration of the language in State v. Schofield, 2005 ME 82, ¶ 40, --- A.2d ‑‑‑, ---,
relied on in State v. Averill, 2005 ME
83, ¶ 10, --- A.2d ---, ---. All
other portions of the State's Motion for Reconsideration were previously denied
by Order dated August 16, 2005.
Upon
reconsideration, the Court amends paragraph 40 of the Schofield opinion to read as follows:
[¶40] On remand, Schofield may be sentenced
constitutionally within the zero- to twenty-year range without the need for
further fact-finding regarding heinousness. If the State recommends a sentence in the upper range, or if
the court is inclined to impose such a sentence even in the absence of a
recommendation, Schofield must be provided with the opportunity for a sentencing
trial before the fact-finder of her choice (i.e., judge or jury). If she selects a jury, at the beginning
of the proceeding, the trial judge should instruct the jury as follows:
You
are being asked to make a decision today that will assist me in sentencing Ms.
Schofield who has been convicted of the Class A offense of manslaughter.
In
imposing sentences, judges are required to look at a number of circumstances
concerning the defendant, the victim, and the commission of the crime. One of the circumstances that a jury is
required to determine is whether the offense committed by the defendant is
among the most heinous crimes committed against a person.
The
parties will provide information and testimony from which you can evaluate the
offense committed by Ms. Schofield and determine whether it is among the most
heinous committed against a person.
_________________________
ALEXANDER, J., statement of nonconcurrence.
Because
I do not believe that the original sentencing was affected by any error of law
or that any jury trial is required for sentencing, I do not join this amendment
order.