老澳门开奖结果

PORTLAND 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 of Maine and the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative Tuesday filed a friend-of-the-court with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court arguing parts of a vague anti-stalking law criminalize protected speech in violation of a June 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The case stems from the July 2022 conviction of Jacob Labbe, Sr., in Androscoggin County Superior Court. The jury was told they could convict Labbe based solely on his speech, even if they found no evidence of a true threat, intimidation, or ill intent tied to his speech. Labbe was ultimately convicted on various charges, including violating a vague law intended to punish people for stalking. As a result, Labbe lost his liberty and was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison only for his speech.

During the trial, the prosecution told jurors they could convict Labbe based only on his texts and other communications to his spouse, and that jurors did not have to find that Labbe understood or intended his speech to be threatening. The brief argues the 鈥渏ury was authorized to find Labbe guilty of stalking based on his speech alone, without regard to whether he engaged in that speech with unlawful intent or even a conscious disregard of his speech鈥檚 likely impact.鈥�

The vague in question was intended to punish people for stalking, but the lack of clarity opens the door for the criminalization of some speech in violation of the First Amendment. While Labbe鈥檚 case was pending on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 in Counterman v. Colorado that 鈥渨hen the state prosecutes someone based on a theory that their speech amounted to a 鈥榯rue threat,鈥� the state must prove that 鈥榯he defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements,鈥欌�� according to the brief. Authorizing the jury to convict Labbe based only on his speech 鈥� not his intentions, other conduct, or motive 鈥� is a violation of Counterman.

The brief was filed in response to the Law Court鈥檚 September for amicus briefs on the constitutionality of the statute as applied in Labbe鈥檚 case in light of Counterman.