State v. Gordon
321 A.2d 352, 1974 Me. LEXIS 295 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The specific intent to permanently deprive an owner of property, a necessary element of robbery, can be inferred when a person takes another's property with the intent to use it temporarily and then abandon it with indifference as to whether the owner ever recovers it.
Facts:
- Richard John Gordon and Edwin Strode escaped from custody in Vermont, acquiring two handguns and a station wagon.
- They fled to Standish, Maine, where their station wagon developed engine trouble.
- In the yard of Franklin Prout, they saw Prout's 1966 maroon Chevelle with the keys in the ignition.
- Strode entered the Chevelle and pointed a gun at Prout, who had come out of his house.
- Gordon and Strode told Prout they were taking his car but promised they would see that he got it back as soon as possible.
- The two men fled, Gordon in the station wagon and Strode in the Chevelle.
- They subsequently abandoned the station wagon in a sand pit and continued their flight in the Chevelle.
- After a high-speed police chase and shootout, they abandoned Prout's Chevelle near a hospital in Portland.
Procedural Posture:
- A Cumberland County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Richard John Gordon with armed robbery and a separate indictment for assault with intent to kill a police officer.
- Gordon pleaded not guilty to both charges in the Superior Court (trial court).
- The Superior Court granted the State's motion for a single trial on both indictments, over Gordon's objection.
- Following a jury trial, a mistrial was declared on the assault charge as the jury was unable to reach a verdict.
- The jury found Gordon guilty of armed robbery.
- A judgment of conviction was entered, from which Gordon appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant who takes another's property, intending to use it only temporarily but then abandon it in a manner that shows indifference to its return, possess the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property required for robbery?
Opinions:
Majority - Wernick, Justice
Yes. A defendant who takes property intending to use it temporarily and then abandon it with indifference to its recovery possesses the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. The court clarified that the 'animus furandi' (intent to steal) required for robbery is evaluated based on the intended detriment to the owner, not the intended benefit to the taker; the concept of 'lucri causa' (taking for the sake of gain) is not an essential element. The intent to permanently deprive does not mean the taker must intend to keep the property forever. Rather, it is satisfied if the taker intends to relinquish control of the property in a way that leaves its recovery to chance, showing an indifference to the owner's rights. Gordon's own testimony that he planned to 'just get out of the area and leave the car' demonstrated this indifference, making his promise to return the car 'empty words' and justifying the jury's finding of the requisite specific intent for robbery.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'intent to permanently deprive' element of larceny and robbery in Maine. By holding that indifference to the owner's recovery of the property satisfies this element, the court broadens the scope of the intent requirement. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to argue that an intended 'temporary' taking, such as for a joyride or escape, negates the specific intent for robbery, especially when the property is abandoned recklessly. The ruling lowers the evidentiary burden for prosecutors, as they no longer need to prove the defendant intended to keep the property forever, but merely that they acted with a willingness that the owner might never regain it.
