Significant Federal & State Criminal Cases

Significant Federal & State Criminal Cases

July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012

William R. Stokes, Deputy Attorney General

Chief, Criminal Division

Donald W. Macomber, Assistant Attorney General

Appellate Section, Criminal Division

Supreme Court

1.United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)

Background: Following denial of motion to suppress evidence, and denial of motion for reconsideration, defendants were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base. They appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, reversed. Certiorari was granted.

Holding: The Supreme Court (J.Scalia) affirmed, holding that attachment of Global–Positioning–System (GPS) tracking device to vehicle, and subsequent use of that device to monitor vehicle's movements on public streets, was a “search” within meaning of Fourth Amendment. The Government's physical intrusion on an “effect” for the purpose of obtaining information would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Amendment at the time it was adopted. The “reasonable expectation of privacy test,” (established in 1967) did not repudiate the understanding that the Fourth Amendment embodies a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas it specifically enumerates.

Justice Sotomayor filed concurring opinion.

Justice Alito filed opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.

2.Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012)

Background: After affirmance of convictions and sentence, petitioner, a state inmate who had been convicted of several offenses, including assault with intent to murder, after rejecting a guilty plea based on the advice of counsel, and who had been denied state postconviction relief, sought federal habeas corpus relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan conditionally granted the petition, requiring the state to offer petitioner the plea deal that he would have taken but for his attorney's ineffective assistance. State appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. State's petition for certiorari was granted.

Holdings: The Supreme Court(J. Kennedy) vacated and remanded, holding that:

(1)petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance in advising petitioner to reject the plea offer and go to trial, and

(2)proper remedy for counsel's ineffective assistance was to order the State to reoffer the plea agreement, and then, if petitioner accepted the offer, the state trial court could exercise its discretion regarding whether to resentence.

Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Thomas joined and Chief Justice Roberts joined in part.

Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.

3.Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012)

Background: Defendant pleaded guilty to felony driving while revoked. After his motion for post-conviction relief was denied, defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, reversed and remanded. Certiorari was granted.

Holdings: The Supreme Court(J.Kennedy) vacated and remanded, holding that:

(1)defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused, and

(2)counsel was deficient in failing to communicate to defendant prosecutor's written plea offer before it expired.

(3)To show prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected because of counsel's deficient performance, defendants must demonstrate a reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded effective assistance of counsel, and defendants must also demonstrate a reasonable probability the plea would have been entered without the prosecution canceling it or the trial court refusing to accept it, if they had the authority to exercise that discretion under state law.

Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito joined.

4.Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012)

Background: Detainee, who had been arrested on outstanding bench warrant after traffic stop, brought § 1983 class action against counties, alleging that invasive searches conducted before he entered jails' general population violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, granted detainee summary judgment. Counties appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, reversed. Certiorari was granted.

Holding: The Supreme Court (J. Kennedy) affirmed, holding that searches, conducted by county jails as a standard part of intake process, did not violate Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment. The searches were invasive but did not include any touching of unclothed areas by inspecting officer. The Court held that the searches struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions. Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments did not require that some detainees be exempt from such procedures absent reasonable suspicion of concealed weapon or other contraband.

Justice Thomas joined in all but part IV of the opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito filed separate concurring opinions.

Justice Breyer filed dissenting opinion in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

5.Williams v. Illinois, 132 S.Ct. , 2012 WL 2202981 (June 18, 2012)

Background: Defendant was convicted following bench trial in the Circuit Court, Cook County, of aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. During the trial, the State’s DNA expert testified that a DNA profile she had received from an out-of-state lab had been generated from semen cells found on a swab taken from the victim’s vagina. Defendant appealed. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed in relevant part. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court of Illinois also affirmed. Certiorari was granted.

Holding: The Supreme Court (J. Alito, for 4-justice plurality) affirmed, holding that expert's testimony referring to DNA profile as having been produced from semen found on victim did not violate Confrontation Clause. The putatively offending phrase in expert's testimony was not admissible for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the matching DNA was “found in semen from the vaginal swabs,” but, rather, that fact was a mere premise of prosecutor's question, and the expert simply assumed the premise to be true when she gave her answer indicating that there was a match between the two DNA profiles.

Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, stating his view that the Confrontation Clause should not apply to scientific laboratory witnesses.

Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, stating his view that the out-of-state lab report referred to by the DNA expert lacked the requisite “formality and solemnity” to be considered “testimonial.”

Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor joined.

Law Court

1.State v. Archer, 2011 ME 80, 25 A.3d 103

Background: Defendant was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court, Penobscot County (Anderson, J.), of attempted murder and elevated aggravated assault. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court (Alexander, J.)affirmed, holding that:

(1)testimony from the State's medical expert regarding the factual and medical conclusions of another physician that were included in the victim's medical records was admissible;

(2)testimony from defendant's mother about threats defendant made regarding the victim hours prior to the attack were admissible; and

(3)the rule of completeness did not require the trial court to play for the jury the complete recordings of each of defendant's 11 phone calls to his mother from the county jail.

2.State v.Nigro, 2011 ME 81, 24 A.3d 1283

Background: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, Knox County (Hjelm, J.), of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and criminal forfeiture. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court (Jabar, J.)affirmed, holding that:

(1)trial court's failure to ask prospective jurors if they harbored anti-Islamic bias did not deprive defendant of fair trial;

(2)out-of-court identification procedure by which confidential informant was presented single photograph of defendant was impermissibly suggestive;

(3)out-of-court identification was independently reliable;

(4)information provided by informant contained in search warrant affidavit was sufficiently reliable to support finding of probable cause; and

(5)admission of owner's manual of safe, which manual was found in defendant's pocket at time of arrest, was not abuse of discretion.

3.State v.LaPlante, 2011 ME 85, 26 A.3d 337

Background: Defendant filed motion to suppress evidence, challenging lawfulness of vehicular stop. The Superior Court, Hancock County (Hunter, J.), denied motion to suppress, and defendant entered conditional guilty plea to operating under the influence. Defendant appealed.

Holding: The Law Court (Levy, J.)vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that the trooper's stop of motorcycle being operated by defendant for the sole purpose of seeking information from him concerning another vehicle that the trooper had observed speeding was unreasonable.

4.State v.LaVallee-Davidson, 2011 ME 96, 26 A.3d 828

Background: Defendant was convicted by jury in the Superior Court, Cumberland County (Crowley, J.), of manslaughter. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court(Saufley, C.J.)affirmed, holding that:

(1)state was not required to disprove mistake of fact defense asserted by defendant, and

(2)sufficient evidence supported conviction.

5.State v.Pabon, 2011 ME 100, 28 A.3d 1147

Background: Defendant was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court, Cumberland County (Warren, J.), of elevated aggravated assault and attempted murder. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court(Levy, J.)affirmed, holding that:

(1)for an error or defect to be obvious, there must be an error, that is plain, and that affects substantial rights, and, if these conditions are met, the court will exercise its discretion to notice an unpreserved error only if it also concludes that the error seriously affects the fairness and integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings; abrogating State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755;

(2)the trial court erred when it failed to include the dwelling-place exception to the duty to retreat in its jury instructions on self defense; and

(3)the trial court's failure to include the dwelling-place exception to the duty to retreat in its self defense jury instructions did not constitute obvious error.

6.Haraden v. State, 2011 ME 113, 32 A.3d 448

Background: Petitioner sought review of order of the Superior Court, Cumberland County (Crowley, J.), finding him incompetent to proceed with portion of his petition for post-conviction review of his prior conviction for murder.

Holdings: The Law Court (Gorman, J.) affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that:

(1)competence may be considered in post-conviction proceedings, but

(2)petitioner must remain in Department of Corrections (DOC) custody during period of his incompetence.

7.State v. Ali, 2011 ME 122, 32 A.3d 1019

Background: Defendant, who had been convicted on his plea of guilty to aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs, filed motion for new trial alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The Superior Court, Cumberland County (Cole, J.), denied motion. Defendant appealed.

Holding: The Law Court (Levy, J.) affirmed, holding that post-conviction review process was the exclusive means for defendant to assert his ineffective assistance claim.

8.State v. Fortune, 2011 ME 125, 34 A.3d 1115

Background: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, Somerset County (Murphy, J.), of multiple counts of aggravated attempted murder, attempted murder, and related offenses, and pled guilty to theft, failure to appear, and violation of a condition of release, and was sentenced to life imprisonment and lesser terms of years. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court (Alexander, J.) affirmed, holding that:

(1)conviction of attempted murder could be based on jury's finding that state proved all elements of attempted murder as to one of the three victims named in single count of indictment;

(2)evidence was sufficient to support conviction of attempted murder;

(3)evidence was sufficient for jury to find presence of both “premeditation-in-fact” and “extreme cruelty” as alternative elements of aggravated attempted murder; and

(4)as matter of first impression, aggravated attempted murder statute does not violate state or federal constitution by providing for imposition of sentence of life imprisonment rather than term of years.

9.State v. Holland, 2012 ME 2, 34 A.3d 1130

Background: Defendant was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court, York County(Cole J.), of two counts of intentional or knowing murder. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court (Alexander, J.) affirmed, holding that:

(1)evidence of the victims' purported reputations for violence was not admissible absent showing that defendant was aware of the reputations at time of shootings;

(2)probative value of book containing criminal statute governing culpable states of mind was not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice;

(3)statements from a prior civil trial involving a claim by defendant against another individual who had no involvement in or connection to instant murder prosecution were appropriately excluded;

(4)State disproved claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt;

(5)trial court acted within its discretion in allowing State to reopen its case-in-chief to identify defendant as the shooter;

(6)State's alleged prejudicial question to firearms expert relating to whether a meeting about the investigation had occurred after the victims' funerals did not necessitate declaration of mistrial; and

(7)trial court did not misapply law in setting defendant's basic sentence at life imprisonment.

10.State v. Knowlton, 2012 ME 3, 25 A.3d 1139

Background: Defendant, who had been charged with aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs, unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs, and illegal importation of scheduled drugs, filed a motion to suppress. The Superior Court, Aroostook County(Hunter, J.), granted the motion. The State appealed.

Holding: The Law Court (Levy, J.) vacated and remanded, holding that remand was required to allow the trial court to determine whether defendant initiated a dialogue with police during drive to prison.

11.State v. Gurney, 2012 ME 14, 36 A.3d 893

Background: Defendant was convicted following a bench trial in the Superior Court, Cumberland County(Cole, J.), of murder and arson. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court(Alexander, J.) affirmed, holding that:

(1)affidavit in support of search warrant for defendant's laptop computer and cell phone established that evidence relating to the crimes with which defendant had been charged would be found on these devices;

(2)probative value of evidence of reference to video of a woman being beheaded for cheating, found in unallocated space on hard drive of defendant's computer, outweighed danger of unfair prejudice to defendant from admission of the evidence; and

(3)there was sufficient evidence that defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect that substantially affected his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.

12.State v. Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, 38 A.3d 1278

Background: Following jury trial, judgment of conviction was entered in Unified Criminal Docket, Cumberland County, (Warren, J.), for intentional or knowing murder. Defendant appealed.

Holding: The Law Court(Alexander, J.) affirmed, holding that evidence did not generate instruction on adequate provocation manslaughter for purposes of reducing charge for intentional or knowing murder.

13.State v. Bailey, 2012 ME 55, 41 A.3d 535

Background: Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court, Penobscot County(Anderson, J.), of ten counts of gross sexual assault, one count of gross sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of unlawful sexual contact. Defendant appealed. The Law Court vacated and remanded [Bailey I, 989 A.2d 716 (Gorman, J.)]. On remand, the Superior Court, Penobscot County (Anderson, J.), granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered during police search of his residence but denied his motion to suppress live-witness testimony of victims. After entering conditional guilty plea to all 12 counts, defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court(Jabar, J.) affirmed, holding that:

(1)defendant's consent to search of his apartment was not voluntary; but

(2)testimony by victims, who were identified from a videotape illegally seized from defendant's apartment, was admissible.

14.State v. Williams, 2012 ME 63, 25 A.3d 103

Background: Defendant was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court, York County (Brennan, J.), of two counts of intentional or knowing murder. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Law Court (Alexander, J.) affirmed, holding that:

(1) defendant was not denied a fair trial when the court denied his motion to sever the trial, or, in the alternative, to hold a joint trial but with a separate jury for each defendant;

(2) the trial court did not erroneously prohibit cross-examinationof a cooperating witness regarding his prior arrests;

(3) the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the cooperating witness’s credibility; and

(4) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of murder and conspiracy to commit

murder.

15.State v. George, 2012 ME 64, 25 A.3d 103

Background: Defendant was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court, York County (Brennan, J.), of intentional or knowing murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Defendant appealed.

Holding: The Law Court (Alexander, J.) affirmed, holding that:

(1) the trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress her grand jury testimony;

(2) the trial court did not err in denyingJeffrey L. Williams’s motion to sever the trial (see #14 above);

(3) the indictment was sufficient;

(4) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of murder and

conspiracy to commit murder;

(5) the conviction was not fundamentally unfair because the State relied heavily on the

testimony of a cooperating witness;

(6) the trial court did not erroneously prohibit cross-examination of a cooperating witness regarding his prior arrests; and

(7) the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the cooperating witness’s credibility.

16.State v.LaForge, 2012 ME 65, 25 A.3d 103

Background: Defendant, who had been charged with operating under the influence, filed a motion to suppress. The District Court, Ellsworth (Mallonee, J.), granted the motion. The State appealed.

Holding: The Law Court (Mead, J.) vacated and remanded, holding thatthe stop of defendant’s vehicle was

justified by an objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.