## Facts

- David and Nancy Carpenter lived on Goshen Road in Winterport, Maine, two houses away from a vacant home recently foreclosed by Peoples Heritage Bank.
- The bank had not given anyone permission to enter the property or remove items from it.
- On the evening of July 7, 1999, David Carpenter saw a black Nissan pickup truck parked in the driveway of the vacant house, which he knew was unoccupied.
- About ten minutes later, Carpenter returned and pulled in behind the truck to investigate.
- A woman told Carpenter she was thinking about buying the home; a man Carpenter later identified as Merle Crossman also said he was considering buying it.
- At that time, Carpenter observed that Crossman’s truck bed was empty.
- After Carpenter went home, he and his wife walked back toward the house with flashlights; while walking, they saw a dark pickup truck pass them on the road.
- At the property, the Carpenters saw a blanket next to the driveway with doors partially covered underneath it.
- They also noticed several doors were missing from the home, including the front door and some sliding glass doors, and the missing doors appeared to match the doors under the blanket.
- As the Carpenters headed home, a dark pickup truck passed them again; they watched it proceed slowly toward the vacant house.
- The Carpenters returned toward the property and got close enough to hear low voices and rustling and to see the cab of the same black pickup truck Carpenter had earlier seen at the house.
- Carpenter then saw the pickup truck drive away from the vacant house and pursued it in his own vehicle.
- During the pursuit, Carpenter saw the doors (previously near the driveway) in the bed of the pickup truck and recognized Crossman as the driver.
- Police entered the vacant home and found it ransacked, with several doors missing.
- At trial, Crossman testified that he was experienced in removing doors and that removing a door requires effort from both sides.

## Issues

1. Was the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crossman “entered” the dwelling, as required for burglary, when no witness saw him inside the home?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crossman committed theft by exercising unauthorized control over the doors with intent to deprive the owner?

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the convictions for burglary of a dwelling and theft.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Crossman entered the dwelling.
- The court also held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Crossman committed theft of the doors.

## Legal Principles

- On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the State and asks whether a rational jury could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and circumstantial proof can establish any element of an offense.
- Burglary “entry” may be proved by circumstantial evidence; the State is not required to present an eyewitness who saw the defendant cross the threshold.
- A jury may infer entry from the defendant’s presence at the scene, the timing of property removal, later possession or transport of the property taken from inside the dwelling, and related circumstances (including defendant’s own testimony about how the items would be removed).
- Theft may be proved by showing the defendant exercised unauthorized control over property of another and that the circumstances support an intent to deprive the owner; immediate possession and removal of property can support that inference.
- An appellate court does not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility; it asks only whether the verdict is supported by evidence from which the jury could rationally reach its conclusions.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed because the jury could reasonably infer from the sequence of events—Crossman’s presence at the vacant house with an empty truck, doors removed from the house and staged under a blanket, the return of the same truck accompanied by voices and rustling, and Crossman’s immediate departure with the doors in his truck—that Crossman entered the dwelling to remove the doors and exercised unauthorized control over them with intent to deprive the bank.


State v. Crossman, 790 A.2d 603 (2002)