State of Maine v. Andrew B. Maderios, 149 A.3d 1145

In 2014 Maderios was indicted for multiple counts including aggravated assault and domestic violence assaults based on alleged incidents with his then-girlfriend; at trial the jury convicted him on four counts related to two incidents and acquitted on the rest.
Before trial Maderios sought to admit testimony from three of the victim’s former romantic partners to show a pattern of making false accusations when relationships ended; the court excluded that testimony under M.R. Evid. 403 as creating a trial-within-a-trial.
Maderios moved to exclude audio recordings and photographs the victim made on her cell phone under the best-evidence rule (M.R. Evid. 1002). The originals had been transferred to the victim’s computer and deleted from the phone (allegedly by Maderios); the trial court admitted the copies under M.R. Evid. 1004(a).
At trial the challenged recordings and photographs were played to the jury; Maderios testified and did not dispute the recordings’ contents but disputed their context (saying the victim manufactured assault noises).
During closing and rebuttal the prosecutor made statements that arguably vouched or expressed personal opinion; the court gave prompt curative instructions and denied a mistrial; Maderios appealed the evidentiary and prosecutorial-misconduct rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Maderios)	Held
Admissibility of testimony from victim’s former partners	Excluding collateral character testimony was proper to avoid prejudice and confusion	Evidence showed motive/plan to fabricate accusations and was admissible under Rule 404(b) and for impeachment	Court did not abuse discretion excluding the testimony under Rule 403 (trial-within-a-trial, confusing/unduly prejudicial)
Admission of copied audio recordings & photos (best-evidence)	Originals were lost/deleted and loss was not by State in bad faith; Rule 1004(a) permits secondary evidence	Best-evidence rule (Rule 1002) required originals; copies should be excluded	Court acted within discretion admitting copies under Rule 1004(a); no bad-faith destruction and dispute was contextual, not content-based
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing/rebuttal; mistrial request	Curative instructions were given promptly and adequately; no deliberate misconduct or residual prejudice	Prosecutor vouched/expressed opinion requiring mistrial	Court did not abuse discretion denying mistrial where prompt curative instructions remedied prejudice; no bad faith or exceptional prejudice found

State v. Ericson, 13 A.3d 777 (discussing exclusion of evidence that would create a trial within a trial and Rule 403 balancing)
State v. Filler, 3 A.3d 365 (wide discretion on Rule 403; limiting cross-examination where brief exploration would be sufficient)
State v. Pratt, 130 A.3d 381 (Rule 404(b) permits prior acts for non-propensity purposes like motive and intent)
LDC Gen. Contracting v. LeBlanc, 907 A.2d 802 (trial judge has discretion to apply exceptions to the best-evidence rule)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (standards for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct and adequacy of curative instructions)
State v. Frisbee, 140 A.3d 1230 (mistrial decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)