State of Maine v. Hutchins
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. PORSC-08-2614 1..._ f I
STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER
NICOLAS HUTCHINS
Hutchins is charged with a single count of Gross Sexual Assault (Class B), in
violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(2)(D). Hutchins filed a motion to dismiss alleging that
the destruction of audiotaped interviews of two key witnesses, including a nearly two
hour interview of the alleged, constitutes destruction of impeachment evidence, a due
process violation. According to the Law Court, a motion to dismiss "is not the
appropriate way to challenge the impermissible destruction of evidence." State v.
Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ~ 40, 932 A. 2d 1169, 1177. "[T]he suppression of that evidence
is the appropriate remedy." Jd. Thus, this court will treat the motion to dismiss as a
motion to suppress.
The state alleges that the assault occurred on August 24, 2008. Officer Twomey
interviewed Melody Michaud and Shawn Laverdiere, four days later on August 28, 2008.
The Laverdiere interview lasted twenty-five minutes. The Michaud interview lasted
nearly two hours. Both witnesses were present for both interviews. At the end of the
interviews, Twomey wrote the witness statements, read the statements back to the
witnesses and asked whether they had any corrections to their statements. The witnesses
then initialed their statements and Twomey forwarded the statements to his supervisor.
Twomey had no more involvement in the case.
The interviews were audiotaped. An auto recording runs all the time in the
witness room. The audiotape runs in a continual loop and an officer must request within
30 days preservation of a particular interview. The interview is preserved by extracting
the interview from the loop. If a timely request is not made, the interview is lost. Here,
Twomey did not request preservation of the interview tape, but he did mention it in his
report prepared the night of the interview, and he assumed that the detective-in-charge of
the case would request the tape if it had any value. The detective-in-charge, Maryann
Bailey, did not request preservation because she believed that officer who conducted the
interview would have made the request. 1 Unfortunately, neither officer requested that the
interviews be preserved. There is no evidence that either officer acted intentionally in
failing to preserve the interviews.
Hutchins argues that failing to preserve equals destruction in violation of his due
process rights, particularly here where the issue is whether the victim was incapable of
consenting where there were 7-1 0 minutes between intercourse with the witness and
victim and the defendant and the victim.
The Maine Law Court has adopted the two-part test developed by the United
States Supreme Court "to determine whether a defendant's right to due process is
violated by the failure to preserve evidence, (1) the evidence must possess an exculpatory
1 According to Bailey there is no standard operating policy regarding preservation of audio tapes but because of this case, she and other officers now e-mail officer who did the interview and advise them they must request preservation of the tape. There should be a standard operating procedure that preserves taped interviews conducted by the police.
value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed; and (2) the evidence must be
of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by
other reasonably available means." State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME at ~ 41 (citations and
quotations omitted). Applying the first step, the State concedes that the destruction of the
interviews deprived the defendant of impeachment evidence, and agrees that
impeachment evidence is exculpatory evidence. See Kyles v. Whitney, 514 U.S. 419,434
(1995). Applying the second step, there is no other way for the defendant to obtain
comparable evidence; there simply is no other comparable evidence once the interviews
were lost. Hutchins needs the interviews to impeach the testimony of the State's key
witnesses.
The next question then is whether the State acted in bad faith in failing to preserve
the evidence. State v. St. Louis, 2008 ME 101, ~ 7, 951 A. 2d 80, 81. Defendant argues
that both officers knew that the tape was potentially useful and both knew that it would
be lost if not preserved within 30 days, yet neither officer did anything to preserve the
tape. The State counters that the officers failed to preserve the evidence. The defendant
argues this is the same as destruction of the tape. Despite the State's serious oversight in
allowing the destruction of the interviews, the court cannot find that the state acted in bad
faith; there was no deliberate misbehavior. Accordingly, the motion to suppress is
denied.
The entry is:
Motion to Suppress Denied.
Date: December 16, 2009 ~. Wheeler, ~ •~ Justice
<:
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT VS CUMBERLAND, ss. NICOLAS C HUTCHINS Docket No PORSC-CR-2008-02614 150 SPRING ST #7 PORTLAND ME 04103 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 05/14/1982 Attorney: TIMOTHY ZERILLO State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON ZERILLO LAW OFFICES 103 EXCHANGE STREET PO BOX 17721 PORTLAND ME 04112 RETAINED 01/23/2009
Attorney: AMY ROBIDAS ZERILLO LAW OFFICES 103 EXCHANGE STREET PO BOX 17721 PORTLAND ME 04112 RETAINED 09/25/2009
Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 10/17/2008
Charge(s)
1 GROSS SEXUAL ASSAULT 08/24/2008 PORTLAND Seq 596 17-A 253 (2) (D) Class B Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem BAILEY I POR
Docket Events:
10/20/2008 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 10/17/2008
10/20/2008 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT ISSUED ON 10/20/2008
CERTIFIED COPY TO WARRANT REPOSITORY ST 11/12/2008 Charge(s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - INDICTMENT FILED ON 11/05/2008
01/21/2009 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT EXECUTED ON 01/21/2009 BRENDA OLEARY , ASSISTANT CLERK-E 01/21/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 02/12/2009 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/21/2009 BAIL BOND- $10,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 01/21/2009
Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $10,000
Receipt Type: CK
Date Bailed: 01/18/2009 Prvdr Name: NICOLAS C HUTCHINS Rtrn Name:
988
01/23/2009 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT RETURNED q~,Ol/t0/2009
Page 1 of ,5 Printed on: 12/18/2009
NICOLAS C HUTCHINS PORSC-CR-2008-02614
DOCKET RECORD
01/23/2009 Party(s): NICOLAS C HUTCHINS ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 01/23/2009
Attorney: TIMOTHY ZERILLO 02/25/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 02/12/2009 ROBERT E CROWLEY , JUSTICE READING WAIVED. DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. COPY OF INDICTMENT/INFORMATION GIVEN TO DEFENDANT. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS 02/25/2009 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND COND RELEASE ISSUED ON 02/12/2009
Date Bailed: 01/18/2009 988
02/25/2009 Charge (s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/25/2009
02/25/2009 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 04/15/2009 @ 10:30 in Room No. 7
02/25/2009 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 05/04/2009@ 8:30 in Room No. 11
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 04/15/2009 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 04/15/2009 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE Attorney: TIMOTHY ZERILLO DA: DEBORAH CHMIELEWSKI WAITINF FOR REPORTS, RESET DISPOSITIONAL CONF. 7-15-09 04/15/2009 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL NOT HELD ON 04/15/2009
NEW DATES GIVEN.
04/15/2009 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 07/15/2009 @ 2:00
04/15/2009 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 08/03/20S':i ~.8:30 in Room No. 11
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/17/2009 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 06/17/2009
06/24/2009 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/24/2009
Attorney: TIMOTHY ZERILLO 06/26/2009 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 06/25/2009 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL JH 06/26/2009 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 06/25/2009 :!
06/26/2009 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE CONTINUED ON 06/25/2009
06/26/2009 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 09/09/2009@ 2:00 in Room No. 7
06/26/2009 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 06/26/2009
JH ANOTHER NOTICE SENT 8-20-09 DD
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State of Maine v. Hutchins (State of Maine v. Hutchins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.