PORTLAND – Maine’s highest court has turned down a Lewiston man who appealed his conviction on a charge of “false swearing” about the signatures on a would-be legislative candidate’s nominating petition.

In a 3-1 decision issued Friday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court granted the assertion by defendant Scott Anthoine of Lewiston that “the state presented no direct evidence on the element of falsity” in his handling of a nominating petition.

The panel majority found, nonetheless, that “evidence was sufficient for a jury to rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthoine was guilty” of the misdemeanor charge.

Anthoine was a legislative assistant in the Republican office of the Maine House of Representatives on March 14, 2000, when he sought to collect signatures for a potential Republican candidate for House District 92, which comprises Hallowell, Chelsea, Pittston and part of Randolph.

To qualify the prospective candidate for that year’s June primary election, 25 certified signatures of registered Republicans in the district had to be filed with the secretary of state by March 15.

Anthoine presented a petition for certification with 28 signatures at the Hallowell city offices on the morning of March 15.

The Secretary of State’s Office began a review after officials discovered that one person whose purported signature was on the petition had died in March 1996.

An investigation showed that three of the signatures were forgeries. Two others were disqualified for technical reasons.

After a departmental hearing, Secretary of State Dan Gwadosky ruled that the petition was invalid and forwarded the matter to the attorney general.

The state subsequently alleged that Anthoine falsely stated under oath on the petition that all the signatures on it were entered in his presence and that he believed each signature was that of the person named.

A Kennebec County Superior Court jury found Anthoine guilty of false swearing and he was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with all but 48 hours suspended.

In his appeal, Anthoine argued that a conviction in such a case should demand direct evidence that he knew some of the petition signatures were forgeries.

Writing for the majority, Justice Susan Calkins said, “No direct evidence of Anthoine’s mental state was required; the state could and did prove his knowledge by circumstantial evidence.”

Having proved the three signatures were forgeries, “it would be unreasonable to require the state … to produce direct evidence of Anthoine’s state of mind,” Calkins wrote.

The majority decision, joined by Justices Paul Rudman and Donald Alexander, prompted a dissent by Justice Howard Dana, who emphasized that “the state presented no evidence that Scott knew, or should have known the signatures were forgeries.”

“If a defendant can be convicted of false swearing on this evidence, then those who circulate petitions are now on notice that their participation in our political process may be hazardous to their freedom,” Dana wrote.