PORTLAND – In a 5-2 decision, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has thrown out the conviction of a Lincoln man involved in a 2007 crash that killed one man and seriously injured another man in New Vineyard.
|
|
The high court’s opinion took issue with an unusual set of circumstances in which a jury’s not guilty verdict was reversed and changed to a guilty verdict on a charge of aggravated operating under the influence after the two men and 10 women panel had been dismissed in closing moments in the trial of Ryan Hurd, 25 on May 29, 2009.
The jury was apparently confused over aspects in the law concerning accomplice liability when considering the aggravated OUI charge and how it would be presented as a charge for the jury to render a verdict, Justice Michaela Murphy told the court at the time.
Terry Richardson, Jr., 34, of Dover-Foxcroft, was killed as a result of a crash in which Hurd’s 2002 Pontiac Grand Prix went off the road, sheared through a telephone pole, flipped upside down and burst into flames. Hurd, 23, Richardson and Chad Bernier, 30, of Medway, had been drinking at two bars into the early morning hours of Oct. 17, 2007. Blood alcohol levels measured two hours after the crash were .22 for Hurd, .26 for Richardson and .09 for Bernier. The legal limit to operate a vehicle is a blood alcohol level of .08. Bernier was seriously injured and Hurd was able to walk to a neighboring house to call for help. It was never made clear during the trial who was driving the car when it crashed.
The week-long trial took a turn for the bizarre on the final day. The jury returned from deliberations and found Hurd not guilty of manslaughter and aggravated OUI, prompting an emotional outburst from his family. Then, however, the jury asked to meet with Justice Michaela Murphy privately. Expecting to thank the jury for their service, Murphy later said she discovered that the jury had felt “cut off” following the reading of the two charges.
After a recorded discussion by the judge and attorneys in chambers, the jury was handed a special verdict form to vote on. The jurors were given the choice of “aggravated OUI” and a second choice of “aggravated OUI – accomplice liability.” Back in court, the jury’s foreperson answered “not guilty” to the charge of aggravated OUI and “guilty” to the charge of aggravated OUI-accomplice liability.
Hurd’s attorney, Richard Hartley, protested the decision and argued the guilty verdict should be vacated because the trial had ended with acquittals of manslaughter and drunk driving charges and the jury had been discharged.
“The Hurd jury rendered its verdict,” Hartley wrote in a motion. “The Hurd jury was discharged. Public police, as reflected in Maine jurisprudence, mandates that the Hurd verdicts of not guilty to both counts can not be impeached.”
Further, Hartley argued, the process after the jury rendered its initial verdict could be construed as “double jeopardy,” or multiple attempts to convict on the same crime.
Assistant District Attorney James Andrews argued that no further deliberations took place and that the will of the jury had not changed.
“The note from the jury makes one thing perfectly clear,” he wrote in the state’s argument, “jury deliberation is at an end and the vote on the jury’s intended verdict had already been taken prior to discharge. The jury’s concern is entirely focused on the fact they have not been heard on their intended verdict.”
In its decision Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Donald Alexander wrote for the majority, “We conclude that the trial court erred when, after discharge of the jury, it inquired into the jury’s deliberative process beyond establishing, to the extent permitted … that the jury’s original verdict of not guilty on the count of aggravated OUI was not the product of outside influence or external juror misconduct.”
Hartley also took issue with the jury’s instruction regarding accomplice liability on the charge of aggravated OUI which the high court majority agreed with had added to the jurors’ confusion.
“The jurors’ subsequent communication with the court establish that their concern over the verdict resulted from the jurors’ misunderstanding of the jury instructions and the alternative theories presented for liability on the one count of aggravated OUI, not from outside influences or external juror misconduct.”
Both Supreme Court Justices Joseph Jabar and Warren Silver disagreed with the majority. Jabar wrote in the dissenting opinion, that the jury, in “apparent confusion” voted on three charges: manslaughter, aggravated OUI and accomplice liability, and “had been cut off” when only the first two charges were read.
“Had the foreman spoken up minutes earlier, prior to the court announcing that members of the jury had ‘discharged (their) obligation to serve as juror’ we would have no trouble concluding that the jury could have fully reported its verdict.”
“In sum, I would conclude the jury had not been discharged and the court properly acted the jury to report its complete verdict,” Jabar wrote.
Hurd had been sentenced to serve the mandatory minimum of six months in jail of a two-year sentence, then two years of probation.
The supreme court’s ruling vacates the conviction and upholds the original verdict of not guilty, which effectively closes the criminal case against Hurd.
