State of Maine v. Christian Averill (affects both 2005 ME 82 and 2005 ME 83)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Sitting as the Law Court Dated: November 16, 2005 Docket No. And-03-356 Decision No. 2005 ME 83 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 factfinding 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 2 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
