208 A.3d 752
Me.2019Background
- Police attempted to serve a criminal summons on Abdiaziz Hussein at his Lewiston apartment; officer told him signing only set a court date and was not an admission of guilt. Hussein refused to sign.
- Officer informed Hussein he was under arrest after continued refusal; a struggle ensued in which the officer testified Hussein ran, punched the officer, and fought while officers attempted to subdue him. Backup arrived and took Hussein into custody.
- Hussein produced a two-minute cellphone video (recorded by his sister) that captured part of the struggle; the recording began after the officer said he was issuing the summons and after the alleged assault. The police did not seize the phone earlier.
- The State moved to inspect and exclude the video as potentially misleading/incomplete; the trial court viewed the video, denied the motion to inspect, but ultimately excluded the video at trial on authentication grounds despite the arresting officer testifying the video "fairly and accurately" depicted the portion shown.
- At trial the officer testified in detail about what the (unseen-by-jury) video showed; the jury convicted Hussein of refusing to sign a summons (Class E), refusing to submit to arrest by physical force (Class D), and assault (Class D). Hussein appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hussein) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of cellphone video | Video is incomplete/misleading; should be excluded | Officer can authenticate; video is relevant and probative | Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; video was properly authenticated by the officer |
| Rule 403 prejudice (completeness concern) | Incompleteness makes video misleading and unfairly prejudicial | Completeness does not bar admission; any incompleteness is for cross-examination | Trial court did not rely on Rule 403 on the record; exclusion cannot be justified on unarticulated 403 grounds |
| Harmless error | Any error excluding video was harmless; officer testimony sufficed | Video undermines officer credibility and was material to verdict | Error was not harmless; exclusion likely affected jury verdict; convictions vacated and remanded for a new trial |
| Double jeopardy as to assault and refusal-to-submit | (State argued convictions valid) | Hussein argued convictions might violate double jeopardy | Court did not reach the double jeopardy issue as reversal on evidentiary error rendered it moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fahnley, 119 A.3d 727 (Me. 2015) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Maine, 155 A.3d 871 (Me. 2017) (abuse of discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (abuse of discretion includes legal error)
- State v. Dube, 136 A.3d 93 (Me. 2016) (M.R. Evid. 901 flexible, low authentication burden)
- State v. Elwell, 793 A.2d 499 (Me. 2002) (exclusion of evidence that undermines key witness credibility is prejudicial)