"STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET AROOSTOOK,ss DOCKET NO. AROCD-CR-18-30028
STATE OF MAINE ) ) ) ) vs. ) ORDER AND DECISION ) REGARDING ) JvIOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ) JM!JES PEASLEE ) Defendant )
Before the court is Defendant, James Peaslee's, Motion for New Trial brought
pursuant to M.R.U.Crim. P. 33. By an Indictment dated February 8, 2018, Peaslee
was charged with the intentional or knowing murder ofPaul Hilenski, 17-A,
M.R.S. 201(1)(A). Trail was held in June, 2019, and on June 11, 2019 the jury
returned a verdict of guilty. Following trial, the State provided additional discovery
to Peaslee which included a statement made by Stephanie Vierkant to a detective
of the Maine State Police in which she reported an interaction with George
Peaslee, Peaslee's brother with a similar appearance. According to the motion, in
her statement, Vierkant told the detective that "George anived crying and
hysterical stating he was the one who actually killed the stepfather, because of all
the abuse he and James had taken at the hands of his stepfather." Based upon the
additional discovery, Peaslee moves for a new trial.
1 An evidentiary hearing on Peaslee's motion was held November 12, 2019. At
hearing, testimony was received from Dr. Daniel Bannish, Clinical Director at the
Maine State Prison, Intensive Mental Health Unit (hereafter IMHU), Stephanie
Vierkant, Det. Lawrence Anderson of the Maine State Police, and Lt. Troy
Gardner of the Maine State Police. Also received in evidence as Exhibit 1 is the
video recording of the interview of George Peaslee conducted by Det. Anderson on
January 18, 2018, less than 24 hours after the shooting of Paul Hilenski. From the
evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, and also evidence presented at trial,
the court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions, to wit:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
l .Evidentiary !{earing
a. Yn:e 11:ewly discovered evidence.
At about 1Opm on an evening within just a few days of the shooting, Stephanie
Vierkant was at the trailer of Robin Cobb to purchase methamphetamine. She had
been at the trailer a few minutes when George Peaslee arrived to also purchase
drugs. George was crying and appeared upset when he arrived. After entering,
George sat down on the couch. Not talking specifically to Veirkant, with his head
2 in his hands, Veirkant heard George say "I can't believe they arrested my f------
brother for something I did." Veirkant left the trailer a few minutes later after she
obtained her drugs. Other than her mother, Veirkant did not tell anyone about what
she overheard George say.
In July, 2019, after the jury returned its verdict finding Peaslee guilty of murder,
Veirkant was processed at the Cumberland County Jail. In some small talk with the
caseworker while being processed, it came up that Veirkan.t was from Aroostook
County, which lead to Veirkant inquiring if James Peaslee was in the Cmnberland
County Jail. Veirkant then said to the caseworker that Peaslee " ..was in jail for
something he didn't do cause someone else told me they did it". The caseworker
promptly relayed this statement to law enforcement, which led to the prompt
disclosure to Peaslee's defense lawyers.
b. George Peaslee 's Mental Health Status and History
At the time of this hearing, George is being held at the Th1HU at the Maine State
Prison. At the IMHU he has been examined and treated by Dr. B a1U1ish on multiple
occasions. Per the te~~:imony o~Dr. Bannish, George is bipolar and suffers from
manic psychotic episodes. George has been held at the IMHU on two prior
occasions. Interestingly, one of George's prior presentations to the HvfHU was in
3 January, 2018. At all admissions to the HvlHU George presented. in a manic state,
holding delusional and disorganized thoughts. Per Dr. Bannish, George is presently
delusional, with disorganized thoughts, is incomprehensible, and is incapable of
testifying. Accordingly, the court finds George is unavailable as a witness to
provide testimony under oath.
From Dr. Bannish's testimony the court also finds that George has a longstanding
mental health condition, in which he cycles through periods of delusional and
disorganized thoughts and beliefs, particularly when he is not !aking his prescrib.e d
medications. His mental health condition is exacerbated by illicit drug use. When
cycling through a manic psychotic state, George is not responsive to questions, he
cannot stay on track with the conversations, he makes unreliable statements which,
as Dr. Bannish stated, will be mixed with grains of truth, and he makes many
unusual sexual references . When in a manic psychotic state, it is difficult to sort
out from George's statements what is truthful and what is not.
c. Interviews ofGeorge Peaslee
Viewed during the hearing was the video recording of George's interview
conducted by Detectives Anderson and Lindsey the day after the arrest of James
Peaslee. The video shows George having a mustache and some facial hair, and
4 several tattoos on his arms. Although George's appearance observed in the video
arguably shares some similarities with James Peaslee, George's overall appearance
is distinct from his brother James.
At the commencement of the interview, George appeared calm and even. But when
he was told his brother had been atTested for the murder ofPaul Hilenski, George
became mildly upset, stating he was angry his brother could be going to prison for
the rest ofhis life. He soon told the detectives he had recently been cut-off from his
medications, including Suboxone.
Through the course ofthe interview, George made several statements indicating
his dislike for Paul H~lenski. George's dislike stems from his belief Mr. Hil.enski
mistreated his mother, abused he and his siblings, and that he had cheated them of
their mother's insurance and property following her death. As the defense points
out, this is the same motive that James Peaslee was alleged to have had. And
George told the officers he had he even thought of killing Mr. Hilenski because of
his beliefthat Mr. Hilenski raped his fiance in the presence of his two-year old son.
But throughout the course ofthe interview, George denied having anything to do
with the murder.
As the interview progressed, George repeatedly went off-topic, in. rambli~g
sentences non-responsive to the questions posed. Some of his statements were
grandiose (a relative having worked wit~ Neil Armstrong to go to the moon) and
•• sensationalizing his own personal strength and physical abilities(an incident when
he threw Mr. Hilenski several feet, working out several hours a day, and an ability
to do handstands). He made several incredulous statements describing his sexual
experiences (sexual acts with numerous ladies), and also numerous, unrealistic
descriptions of genitalia and the effects of sexual abuse to his fiance(references to
the size ofMr. Helins!d 's genitals, and description ofhis fiance 's genitalia after
the supposed rape) . Several times George described incidents in which he
believed he was being taken advantage of, or cheated by others (his apartment
being broken into and belongings stolen on several occasions), and that people
could read his mind and lmow what he was thinking before he did ("I know I'm
being app 'd"), leading further to his exploitation. George also said he hears voices.
As previously indicated, the court finds that George is presently unable to testify as
a witness due to his mental health condition. The court also finds that some of the
symptoms he currently suffers from leading to his inability to testify were also
exhibited by him during his his interview in January, 2018, when he had stopped
taking his medications and was apparently seeking illicit drugs.
6 2. Evidence at Trial
In addition to the evidence received at the motion hearing, the court takes note of
the evidence admitted at trial which the jury had to consider in reaching its guilty
verdict. The evidence would support findings by the jury that:
The victim Paul Hilenski was married to Peaslee's mother, Janet, who died in
November, 2015 as a result of a car accident. Janet died without a will. As the
surviving spouse, Paul received a significant portion of Janet's estate, including the
home in Bridgewater. Peaslee was unhappy that Paul received the home. After
Janet's d~ath, Paul installed a security system that included video recording of the
exterior and interior of the home, including the main entrance to the home.
Paul was killed as a result of gunshot wounds to the chest on January 17, 2018.
The shooting was recorded by the security system Paul had recently installed,
which showed a man running up the driveway, onto the steps, knocking on the
door and then firing multiple shots through the glass of the door. The interior
·cameras of the system showed Paul walking towards the door, momentarily out of
the camera's range, and returning into range with blood showing through his shirt.
Several law enforcement officers who knew both James and George Peaslee
testified that the individual seen in the recording of the shooting was James
7 Peaslee. Officers also testified that they recognized the jacket being worn by the
shooter in the video recording as a jacket seen worn by Peaslee on several prior
occasions. The jury had the opportunity to view the video recordings several times
through the course of trial, as well as ongoing opportunity to observe Peaslee. A
photograph taken of George Peaslee taken shortly after the shooting was also
admitted into evidence for the jury to consider.
Ballistic evidence indicated the bullets that fatally wounded Paul Hilenski were
.380 caliber. Spent .380 casings w_ere found at the scene near the area the recording
of the security system showed the shooter standing when the shots were fired.
The gun used in the shooting was never recovered. But on January 17, 2018, the
day of the shooting, Randall Boyce gave Peaslee a .380 caliber handgun in
exchange for a TV. And a box of .380 caliber bullets with Peaslee's fingerprints on
it was seized by police from Peaslee's home after the shooting.
Cell phone records indicate Peaslee' cell phone was out of service, suggestive it
had been turned off, in the timeframe of and after the shooting, which occurred
shortly before 6pm. Security footage from On the Run convenience . store in .Mars
Hill showed that Peaslee had entered the store around 4:56 pm the day of the
shooting, wearing a different jacket than that seen in shooting video, which the
8 State theorized was Peaslee's attempt to establish his alibi. An employee of the
convenience store testified she recalled seeing Peaslee when he entered the store
that day, and he acted differently than usual and was grinding his teeth.
And the jury heard from Matthew Clark, who testified that he spoke with Peaslee
in lvlay or June of 2018 while both were in the Aroostook County Jail. Clark
testified that Peaslee told him he'd gone to the convenience store to create an alibi,
that he acquired a .380 caliber handgun, changed his clothes before going to the
Hilenski home, and once there he went to the door, knocked, and when the victim
came to the door he shot him. Clark testified that Peaslee further told him that after
the sh~oting, he drove towards Limestone, threw the gun in the woods, put his
clothes in a trashbag, washed his hands with bleach, and that he knew about the
cameras so covered his tattoos on his arms with cream and clothing. Clark also
testified Peaslee told him he shot his stepfather over the property.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
1. Newly Discovered Evidence
Motions for a new trial on the grotmd of newly discovered evidence are looked
upon with disfavor, in light of the need for finality and for the preservation of the
9 integrity of criminal judgments. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d 523,531 (Me. 2013). A
defendant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evid~nce must establish
by clear and convincing evidence that-
1. the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is
granted;
2. it has been discovered since the trial;
3. it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due
diligence;
4. it is material to the issue; and
5. it is not merely cumulative or impeaching, unless it is clear that such
impeachment would have resulted in a different verdict. Twargus, 72 A.3d at 531-
532.
The Law Court has described the burden in seeking a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence as a heavy one:
It is not enough for the defendant to show that there is a possibility or a chance ofa different verdict. It must be made to appear that, in light ofthe overall testimony, new and old, another jury ought to give a different verdict; there must be a probability that a new trial would result in a different verdict. Twargus, 72 A.3d at 532; citing State v. Dechaine, 630 A.2d 234,236 (Me. 1993).
This newly discovered evidence identified in Peaslee's motion surfaced after trial,
in July, 2019 when Vierkant told to a caseworker at the Cumberland County Jail
what she allegedly heard George say in January 2018. This information was
10 promptly relayed to the investigators and the prosecution, who promptly relayed
the information to Peaslee' s defense. The Defense concedes, and the court finds
there is no Brady violation. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S. Ct. 1936
(1999). Therefore, flS will he discussed more fully, infra, the primary question is
whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict
with the new evidence, and not, had there been a Brady violation, whether in the
absence ofthe new evidence the defendant received a fair trial resulting in a verdict
worthy of confidence. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d 523, 533 (Me. 2013); citing Kyles
v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419,434, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995).
There is no question that due to his present mental health, George Peaslee is
unavailable as a witness to testify under oath. Accordingly, addressing Peaslee's
motion requires the additional analysis whether George's statement made in
Vierkant' s presence is admissible.
2. Statement Against Interest
Peaslee argues the Vierkant' s testimony to what she overheard George Peaslee
state is admissible as a statement against interest pursuant to Rule 804(b)(3). For
an out-of-court statement to be admissible pursuant to Rule 804(b)(3):
1. the declarant must be unavailable as a witness;
11 2. the statement must so far tend to subject the declarant to criminal
responsibility that a reasonable person in his position would not have made the
statement unless he believed it to be true; and
1. the statement must be corroborated by circumstances that clearly indicates
its trustworthiness.
State vs. Cochran, 2000 11:E 78, ~11.
To satisfy the trustworthiness prong, four additional factors are considered:
L the time of the declaration and the party to whom it was made;
2. tJ;ie existence of corroborating evidence in the case;
3. whether the declaration is inherently inconsistent with ~he accused's guilt;
and
4. whether at the time of the incriminating state1nent the declarant had any
probable motive to falsify.
Cochran, at 112.
The court will first discuss whether George's statement made in Vierkant's
presence is admissible, and then discuss whether a new trial be granted.
12 DISCUSSION
1. Is George's statement made in Vierkant's presence admissible?
There is no question that due to his mental health, George is presently unavailable
as a witness. The first prong of Rule 804(b)(3) and Cochran is satisfied. However,
the third prong of Rule 804(b)(3) and Cochran, the question of trustworthiness, is
doubtful.
Although the statement was made in Veirkant' s presence, George was not speaking
directly to Veirkant. 1 George arrived at the trailer, to acquire illicit drugs. He had
recently stopped taking his prescribed medications. Sitting on the couch, Veirkant
described George as upset, crying, and holding his head in his hands when he
spontaneously made the statement. The statement was not made in response to any
discussions with Vierkant.
Although it is not definitive whether Det. Anderson's interview of George
occurred before or after Vierkant' s encounter with George, the evidence does
establish the two events occmTed very close in time, both within a day or so of
Peaslee's arrest. George's condition observed in the video recording of his
1 A statement made in response to a question or part of a conversation is deemed more reliable and trustworthy than
a statement made to oneself, or not part of a direct conversation with another.
13 interview is indicative of his condition when Vierkant enc01mtered him. As
previously discussed, at the time of the interview, George repeatedly went off
topic, and was non-responsive to the questions posed; he made grandiose
statements of a relative's accomplishments and of his own strength and abilities
and sexual experiences; and he expressed unrealistic descriptions of genitalia,
particularly regarding his fiance. With the assistance of Dr. Bannish's testimony
which explain George's diagnoses, mental health history and description of his
delusional and disorganized beliefs when suffering from a made psychotic pe1iod,
coupled with his being off his medications and seeking illicit drugs at that time, the
court believes some level of manic psychosis was present during the interview. The
interview and the encounter with Vierkant occurring close in time, the court also
finds it likely George was suffering some degree of manic psychosis during his
encounter with Vierkant when George was seeking drugs. Observing George's
condition during his interview with Det. Anderson, the court cannot find a
statement made by him within the same timeframe, while upset, crying, and
seeking drugs, to be t11Jstworthy. The court finds that the requirements ofRule '
8 04(b)(3) and the Cochran factors for trustworthiness are not satisfied. 2
2 The same reasoning calls into question whether the second prong of Rule 804(b)(3) is capable ofbeing satisfied, as
George's mental health condition would impair his ability to act as a reasonable person would.
14 Accordingly, the court finds that George's statement made within Vierkant's
presence is not admissible.
To complete the discussion however, the court will assume arguendo the statement
made in Vierkant's presence is admissible.
2. Should the newly discovered evidence entitle Peaslee to a new trial?
The statement Vierkant overheard George make was not revealed to law
enforcement until after trial, so was obviously not discovered uP..til then. Short of
interviewing everyone in Aroostook County, it would have been impossible to
discover before. The statement, if admissible, would be material, and was not
merely cumulative or impeaching. Accordingly, the last four factors of the factors
listed in Twardus for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are satisfied.
See State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d 531-532. The pivotal question is whether Peaslee
has established by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence is such as will
probably change the result if a new trial is granted. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d a,t
531. The answer to that question is no.
15 A theme generated by the defense through trial was that it could have been George
Peaslee that committed the murder, and it was George who is s~en in the .
surveillance video of the shooting. Through the trial, the defense asserted that it
was not James Peaslee who is seen doing the shooting. In addition to the videp of
the shooting, and having an opportunity to view Peaslee himself, the jury was also
provided a photograph of George taken shortly after the murder. In short, the jury
had the benefit of watching the surveillance video several times, looking at the
photograph of George, and making its own observations of James Peaslee to reach
its conclusion whether James Peaslee was the shooter seen in the video. And as
previously stated, although they have some similarities, George looks quite distinct
from James. James Peaslee did not have a mustache, while George did. Although
the video was not "movie" quality, it was clear enough to make reasonable
conclusions whether the individual was James Peaslee or George. In short, the
video of the shooting was compelling evidence of James Peaslee's guilt.
But the~e was significant additional evidence. The murder weapon was a .380
caliber handgw1. Although the murder weapon was not recovered, the evidence
showed Peaslee acquired a .380 shortly before the murder, and a box of .380
caliber bullets with his fingerprints were found in his home. And Peaslee confessed
to Matthew Clark that he committed the crime over the dispute involving his
16 mother's property, that he had acquired a .380 caliber gun, gone to a convenience
store to create an alibi, changed clothes, then went to the Hilenski.home, knocked
on the door and when Hilenski came to the door he shot them. He also told Clark
he had gotten rid ofhis clothes and gun. Security camera footage showed Peaslee
did go to a convenience store shortly before the murder, in a jacket different than
seen in the shooting video. But the jacket worn by the shooter in the video was a
jacket that officers testified to seeing Peaslee wear on several prior occasions.
Point being, Matthew Clark had numerous details of the murder consistent with the
evidence of the case, supportive of the view he obtained the information first hand,
and that Peaslee was attempting to create an alibi. And conveniently, the evidence
showed Peaslee's cell phone was off during the time frame of the murder,
consistent with an attempt to conceal his locations.
The evidence the jury had to consider was extremely compelling ofPeaslee's guilt
The newly discovered evidence pales in comparison. If the jury had been presented
with Vierkant's testimony of what she overheard George say, they would have also
been considering that it was something said while George was described as upset,
crying, and seeking drugs- testimony coming from someone seeking drugs herself,
who didn't relay the infmmation until over a year late while entering a jail. And
were the jury to have received Veirkant's testimony, the jury most likely would
17 have also seen the video of George's interview to Det. Anderson. In that video,
they would not just have seen George deny involvement, but also been able to
make their own assessments as to how reliable or credible anything is that George
says and whether he is grounded in reality.
Again, the magnitude of evidence demonstrating Peaslee's guilt is significant. If
the evidence of what Veirkant overheard George say while both of them were
getting drugs was admitted at trial and presented to the jury, the court finds it
would not change the result. See State v. Dobbins, 2019 :rvt:E 116, 150. The coui1
finds that Peaslee has not established by clear and convincing evidence that such
evidence from Veirkant will probably change the result if a new trial was granted.
Again, the standard is not that whether there is a possibility or a chance of a
different verdict; there must be a probability that a new trial would result in a
different verdict. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d at 532.
Accordingly, Peaslee's motion for a new trial is denied.
"' Dated: November$019
Justice, Superior Court