Meggan M. Pratt v. State of Maine, 303 A.3d 661

Pratt was charged with domestic violence assault after an incident with her daughter; at trial the defense themes included self-defense and, in opening, trial counsel referenced a parental-discipline justification.
Trial counsel told the jury Pratt “will testify,” and Pratt did testify, asserting self-defense; the prosecution elicited testimony about Pratt’s parenting and the removal of a child from her home.
The trial court sustained some objections but allowed broader testimony about parenting because counsel had placed the parental-discipline justification in issue during opening statements; Pratt waived that justification after evidence closed and the jury was instructed only on self-defense.
The jury convicted Pratt; she sought post-conviction review (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) opening the door to prejudicial parenting evidence and (2) failing to object to prosecutorial error.
The PCR court found counsel not deficient for opening the door but deficient for failing to object to prosecutorial error and concluded any deficiencies were not prejudicial.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held counsel was deficient for opening the door (counsel had promised Pratt would testify and knew self-defense was likely), and that the cumulative effect of that error plus unobjected prosecutorial questions prejudiced Pratt; it vacated the PCR denial and remanded to vacate the conviction.

Issue	Pratt's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s opening statement that raised the parental-discipline justification constituted deficient performance by “opening the door” to prejudicial parenting evidence	Trial counsel should not have raised parental-discipline because Pratt’s defense was self-defense and counsel knew or should have known Pratt would testify; counsel failed to consult and promised Pratt would testify	Opening parental-discipline was reasonable trial strategy because Pratt might not testify and parental-discipline was a viable alternative defense	Counsel’s opening constituted deficient performance: he expected Pratt to testify and knew self-defense; raising parental-discipline without adequate client consultation fell below objective reasonableness
Whether counsel’s failure to object to prosecutorial elicitation about removal of a child and related comments prejudiced the defense	Combined with the evidence admitted because counsel opened the door, the prosecutor’s questions and comments cumulatively undermined confidence in the verdict	The prosecutorial error alone was not sufficiently prejudicial; PCR court found any error harmless given the trial record	Prejudice found: cumulative effect of counsel’s opening-the-door error plus unobjected prosecutorial error created reasonable probability of a different outcome; conviction vacated

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Watson v. State, 230 A.3d 6 (Me. 2020) (discussing standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)
Pratt v. State, 243 A.3d 469 (Me. 2020) (direct appeal addressing admissibility of parenting evidence after defense placed parental-discipline in issue)
Winchester v. State, 291 A.3d 707 (Me. 2023) (standards of review for PCR courts)
Levesque v. State, 664 A.2d 849 (Me. 1995) (deference to counsel’s tactical decisions unless manifestly unreasonable)
Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2002) (prejudice from failing to produce evidence promised in opening)
Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2005) (considering cumulative effect of multiple counsel errors)
Ford v. State, 205 A.3d 896 (Me. 2019) (remedying successful PCR claims by vacating underlying conviction)