State of Maine v. White

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: September 7, 2021
• Docket: AROcr-19-40866
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT AROOSTOOK, ss LOCATION: PRESQUE ISLE DOCKET NO. AROCD-CR-19-40866

STATE OF MAINE ) ) v. ) ORDER ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ) JOMOWHITE )

The Defendant was convicted after jury trial of all of the following five counts as set forth

in the indictment in this matter:

I. Attempted Murder; 2. Elevated Aggravated Assault; 3. Reckless Conduct with a Dangerous Weapon; 4. Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person; and 5. Robbery.

By Motion for New Trial dated August 11, 2021, Defendant is seeking a new trial on all

counts. Defendant contends that the jury "may have given significant consideration to Mr.

White's failure to testify in its deliberations." Motion at 1. The Defendant argues that the jury

was subjected to "extrajudicial prejudicial information or outside influence" and that the jurors

failed to provide accurate voir dire responses.

As noted in the Maine Jury instruction Manual: "[I]n Warger, the U.S. Supreme Court

held that Federal Rule 606(b) precluded a party seeking a new trial from using one juror's affidavit

of what another juror said during deliberations to demonstrate that the other juror had been

dishonest during jmy selection voir dire." 1 Maine Jury instruction Manual§ 9-6 (2021).

'"Maine Rule of Evidence 606(b) has been applied to hold that evidence ofjuror statements

may not be offered to discuss juror thought processes, to suggest that jurors misunderstood

instructions or forms, to show that a criminal verdict was not unanimous, or to show that the verdict

1 reported was not what was intended. State v. Leon, 2018 ME 70, ,r,r 7-14; State v. Hurd, 2010 ME

118, ,r,r31-45; Taylor v. Lapomarda, 1997 ME 216, ,r,r5-10; Cyr v. Michaud, 454 A.2d 1376,

1383 (Me. 1983). Rule 606(b) 'protects jurors in their communication to fellow jurors made in the

confidence of the jmy room, and prevents the impeaclnnent of jury verdicts by jurors who later

have a change ofhemt.' Watts, 2006 ME 109, i!21."' 1 Maine Jury Instruction Manual§ 9-6

(2021); State v. Daly, 2021 ME 37 at ,r,r48-49. The Rule contains two exceptions to the general

prohibition: "(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's

attention; or (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror." MR.EVID.

606(b)(2).

The Defendant's motion contains bare assertions with no accompanying affidavit or detail

as to who the "third party" is that provides these assertions. The fact that the Defendant had the

right to elect not to testify was referenced many times throughout the trial, both by the court and

by the Defendant. The Defendant points to no admissible evidence to supp01t his motion that there

was juror misconduct or that the jury was subject to extrajudicial prejudicial information or outside

influence. Whether the Defendant testified or not was not "extrajudicial" information. BLACK'S

LAW DICTIONARY 586 (6th ed. 1990)(Extrajudicial - That which is done, given, or effected

outside the course of regulm· judicial proceedings. Not founded upon, or unconnected with, the

action of a court of law, as e.g. extrajudicial evidence, or an extrajudicial oath").

At trial, the court found the prosecutor's comment related to the audio recording of the

Defendant to be misconduct, but was not bad faith. Although not directly commenting on the fact

that Mr. White did not testify, the comment generally contrasted a statement by way of an audio

recording with a statement from the witness stand. The comt found that the State could have

argued to the jury the ways they might assess the credibility of the statements in an audio recording

2 without contrasting the recording with live testimony. The court provided an instruction

immediately following the objection that no presumption of guilt may be raised and no inference

of any kind could be drawn from Mr. White's choice not to testify and that they were to assign no

weight whatsoever to the fact that Mr. White did not testify. Based on the circumstances as viewed

by the court through the progression of the trial, the court dete1mined that the instruction was

sufficient to remedy the potential issue created. To the extent the motion for new trial requests the

court to reconsider that ruling, the court declines to do so. After review of the transcript of the

closing argument portions in question, the court finds that said instruction was sufficient.

Due to the foregoing, the Defendant's motion for new trial is DENIED.

The entry shall be:

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion for new trial is denied.

Dated: September 2, 2021