State of Maine v. Bellavance

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedAugust 18, 2011
DocketKENcr-10-230
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Bellavance (State of Maine v. Bellavance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Bellavance, (Me. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss CR-"-230 }t) ·i· • l \ - ,~' t I) l f ~ I. t

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS RAYMOND BELLAVANCE

The Court has now had the opportunity to review the parties' filings and exhibits,

as well as transcripts. The Defendant is asking the court to dismiss this indictment

alleging that the State of Maine filed to provide exculpatory and impeachment

information and evidence regarding Krista Macintyre's relationship with Jason Lunt, and

information from a confidential informant, Cl -09-49, who testified at hearing on this

motion. The defense claims that the State, through the District Attorney's Office, has

been on notice regarding problems with the State Fire Marshall's provision of discovery

in this and other cases, given Attorney Flick's letter to the DA's Office, and Justice

Mills' decision dismissing with prejudice the indictment in State v. Davis, CR-09-49.

The State has responded by acknowledging that information regarding Mr. Lunt

was not provided, but that it was already known by the Defendant personally, and further

that the information is not exculpatory. It also acknowledges that information regarding

CI-09-49 was not provided as completely as it should have been, in that this person was

identified by Det. MacMaster by name in one report, but not by Det. Morin, who simply

identified the person as an informant. The State asserts that neither the DA's Office nor

1 certain other officers involved in the case knew they were the same person until the

defense so advised. Obviously, the defendant could not know absent an order requiring

disclosure, or disclosure by the State, or as happened, fortuitous discovery ofthe

connection. The State further argues that CI-09-49's testimony at hearing was

inconsistent and unreliable, and denies that any police officer told the CI to engage in any

illegal conduct such as to get "high" with the Defendant in order to induce him to confess

to the arson. The State claims that the Cl' s testimony regarding the CI' s motivation to

cooperate with law enforcement- being on probation, facing almost certain revocation-

is not exculpatory in any event. Finally, the State asserts that statements made to the CI in

which he adamantly denied involvement, was new information that they had no

opportunity to disclose, and simply not worthy of belief.

The Court finds that the District Attorneys Office did not act with any intention to

prevent disclosure of exculpatory information, but also finds that evidence regarding Ms.

Macintyre's relationship with Mr. Lunt is arguably exculpatory. Even if the defendant

believed that they had a relationship, any evidence corroborating that belief might be

relevant and of assistance in developing a defense. Whether that evidence would

ultimately admissible is not the question at this stage of the proceedings. The Court also

finds that information regarding CI-09-49's motivations and claims of inducements

would be subject to automatic disclosure had law enforcement provided that information

to the District Attorney's Office. The Court also is confident, that had the DA's Office

been aware of this information, it would have been provided by them directly to the

defense, at least as to the issue ofthe informant's probationary status, and the new

criminal charges that could have been brought.

2 The Court declines to make any findings with respect to the claims made by CI-

09-49 at hearing, as it will be for the jury to determine that individual's credibility,

should the informant be called as a witness by either party.

The Court concludes that the sanction requested- that of dismissal - is not

warranted. Unlike the sanction imposed by Justice Mills in State v. Davis, this court has

not previously issued orders that were not apparently complied with. In addition, because

the issues and problems have been appropriately recognized and brought to the court's

attention, it is not too late for either side to develop this information in order to receive a

fair trial.

The entry will be: Motion to Dismiss is denied. The Court orders that

the parties will confer with the Court on September 7, 2011. At that time

the Court will issue an appropriate order, after giving the parties an

opportunity to be heard. The Order will require the State to scrupulously

ensure that all exculpatory evidence known to any law enforcement

agency involved in the case has been disclosed. It will also require the

State to report to the court the efforts it has made to "audit" and inventory

all reports, exhibits, and recordings, and it will provide for a deadline for

the State to provide the information to the defense. Ifthe defense can be

ready for trial during the October 2011 trial term, the court will set a date

certain for that purpose. Any violation of this order, or the order to be

issued on September 7, 2011, may result in dismissal of the charges

against the defendant.

3 :l::>lLSflf .L"HflO::> "HOlll:ldflS :I.LVG

-~o~t STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT VS KENNEBEC, ss. RAYMOND BELLAVANCE Docket No AUGSC-CR-2010-00230 43 MAIN STREET WINTHROP ME 04364 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 02/27/1961 Attorney: ROBERT RUFFNER State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE ROBERT J RUFFNER ATTORNY AT LAW 80 EXCHANGE ST., SUITE 32 PORTLAND ME 04101 APPOINTED 11/02/2010

Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 04/05/2010

Charge(s)

1 ARSON 06/03/2009 VASSALBORO Seq 776 17-A 802 (1) (A) Class A

2 ARSON 06/03/2009 VASSALBORO Seq 4539 17-A 802 (1) (B) (2) Class A Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem

Docket Events:

04/05/2010 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 04/05/2010

04/05/2010 Charge(s): 1 WARRANT - ON AFFIDAVIT REQUESTED ON 04/05/2010

04/05/2010 Charge(s): 1 WARRANT - ON AFFIDAVIT ORDERED ON 04/05/2010 CHARLES DOW , JUDGE 04/05/2010 BAIL BOND - $1,000,000.00 SURETY BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 04/05/2010 CHARLES DOW , JUDGE OR 200,000 CASH 04/05/2010 Charge(s): 1 WARRANT - ON AFFIDAVIT ISSUED ON 04/05/2010

04/05/2010 MOTION - MOTION TO IMPOUND FILED BY STATE ON 04/05/2010

MOTION TO IMPOUND AFFIDAVIT AND ARREST WARRANT 04/05/2010 MOTION - MOTION TO IMPOUND GRANTED ON 04/05/2010 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 05/14/2010 Charge(s): 1 WARRANT - ON AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED ON 05/14/2010

ARRESTED BY SOUTH CAROLINA STATE POLICE 05/14/2010 Charge(s): 1 WARRANT - ON AFFIDAVIT RETURNED ON 05/14/2010

CR 200 Page 1 of 6 Printed on: 08/22/2011 RAYMOND BELLAVANCE AUGSC-CR-2010-00230 DOCKET RECORD 05/21/2010 Charge (s) : 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 05/21/2010

05/27/2010 Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 05/21/2010

05/27/2010 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 07/27/2010 at 10:00 a.m.

05/27/2010 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 05/24/2010 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 05/27/2010 Party(s): RAYMOND BELLAVANCE ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 05/24/2010

Attorney: JAMES FLICK 05/27/2010 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 05/27/2010

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Howes
432 A.2d 419 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)
State v. Blier
371 A.2d 1091 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1977)
State v. Vahlsing
557 A.2d 946 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Bellavance, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-bellavance-mesuperct-2011.