/

Motion to revoke mill hostage taker’s probation denied, following statement during anger management

7 mins read
Francis Smith, seen here in Franklin County Superior Court in March 2012, was sentenced to serve 5 years of a partially suspended sentence in Franklin County Superior Court.

FARMINGTON – The Norridgewock man that entered the Verso Paper Mill in 2012 with two guns and held hostages for six hours will not face additional jail time due to statements he made during an anger management course in prison, a Superior Court justice ruled today.

Francis Smith III, 53, pleaded guilty to kidnapping, a Class A felony, as well as three counts of criminal threatening, terrorizing and assault in relation to the March 14, 2012 incident at the paper mill. In November 2012, Smith was sentenced to 12 years in prison, with all but 5 years suspended, followed by six years of probation. Four years of the probation was attached to the kidnapping conviction, with 2 years attached to the terrorizing charge. The probationary periods were to be served consecutively, in order to provide Smith with 6 years of state oversight following his release.

Smith is due to be released in 2016. However, while Smith was serving his sentence at the Maine Department of Corrections facility in Windham, the state filed a motion to revoke the prisoner’s probation.

The Franklin County District Attorney’s Office motion stems from an incident that occurred on July 29, 2014 at the prison. While Smith was attending an anger management course, the course supervisor alerted prison officials to statements made by Smith in class.

In that email, which was read in court Friday, Community Program Coordinator Noreen Hopkins indicated her concern with Smith. The prisoner had indicated that he wanted revenge towards those that had wronged him and that “if a doctor should give him a short time to live,” he’d take many with him before he went. Hopkins said that she believed that Smith was referring to the victims of Smith’s 2012 hostage taking at the mill.

On March 14, 2012, Smith entered the paper mill’s administrative wing after moving through a security gate. He took three Verso employees hostage, including the mill manager, and effectively shut the facility down for the day as police responded. Six hours later, following two hostages escaping on their own and negotiations with Maine State Police, Smith was taken into custody.

Smith’s reasons for bringing guns into the mill were disputed at sentencing in 2012, following his guilty pleas. Both then-Assistant District Attorney Andrew Robinson and Smith’s attorney, Walter McKee, agreed that Smith had been terminated from his position at the mill in the fall of 2011, after reportedly spraying a coworker with a hose. However, while Robinson contended that Smith planned a premeditated and potentially-violent confrontation with administrators, noting that Smith had demanded the name of the person who had “turned him in” and led to his termination, McKee said that the fact that both of Smith’s guns were initially unloaded and statements made to the state’s doctor instead revealed a plan designed to lead to Smith’s own death.

At a 2-hour hearing Friday afternoon, Hopkins told both attorneys and Justice William Stokes that Smith’s “tone of voice” and “demeanor” resulted in her reporting his comments to other DOC officials. She became further concerned, Hopkins said, when she tried to get Smith to look at different points of view and received little response.

“At that point, I think he had blinders on,” Hopkins said.

Later, Hopkins met with Smith again. At that point, she testified, he was “very much a gentleman” and wasn’t upset when she informed him that she had reported his comments. She asked Smith to stay in the anger management course and he eventually completed it, receiving a certificate signed by Hopkins.

Hopkins said that Smith was the second prisoner in approximately 6 years of leading classes that she had reported. Hopkins, who has nearly 15 years of experience in corrections, noted that she had no intention of getting Smith charged with additional crimes, but was required to report such incidents.

The state contended that the statements made by Smith constituted misdemeanor terrorizing, which would violate the “no new criminal conduct” provision of Smith’s probation. Robinson noted that while unusual, the state was allowed to apply the tenants of a probation agreement while the subject was still incarcerated.

Both attorneys stipulated that Smith was on probation and that new criminal activity would violate the terms of that probation. In a probation violation hearing, the state must prove the allegations by the preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.

Robinson said that the statements constituted a threat and the fact that Smith had, at that time, 2 years of prison time left did not change that fact. Furthermore, Robinson said, case law indicated that setting conditions upon the statement, “if a doctor should give him a short time to live,” did not make the statement not a threat.

“He’s talking about the people he held at gunpoint at the mill,” Robinson said. “That resulted in him going to prison.”

McKee argued that the fact that Smith was in jail “critically detract[ed]” from the reasonable fear component of a terrorizing complaint. The attachment of the qualifying “if a doctor …” further impacted the statement, McKee said.

After recessing to review case law, Justice Stokes returned, calling the case “unusual.” He said that the statements had been made during an anger management class, and that the state had not met the burden of proving the statements were threats, rather than a prisoner discussing his situation in the context of a group therapy-style course.

Stokes found that Smith had not violated his probation.

Upon his release in 2016, Smith will be on probation for 6 years.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Comments

  1. I hope they continue to work with him. Sounds like he got caught in a moment and had a quick laps in acting and let his true colors shine. It’s easy to play the system and jump through hoops if your freedom is on the line. Lets hope they keep this in mind when he’s released..

  2. I, like many people in this area, have family members that work at verso paper. Upon reading this article, I am terrified for their, and the other workers’ safety after this man’s release. I hope and pray that he will no longer be a threat, but I also think that if he continues to make threats, that he is released to a mental health facility so he can get the help he needs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.