State of Maine v. Aubrey Armstrong, 212 A.3d 856

On Nov. 23, 2015 a man was beaten to death in an Augusta apartment; victim’s hands and feet were bound and death caused by blunt-force injuries.
Defendants: Aubrey Armstrong (appellant), Damik Davis, Michael McQuade, and Zina Fritze; Fritze later committed suicide and was unavailable to testify at Armstrong’s 2018 bench trial.
McQuade testified that Armstrong planned and participated in a drug-related robbery that culminated in the assault; Davis and McQuade later pleaded guilty and cooperated; Davis did not testify at trial.
Armstrong sought to admit Fritze’s recorded interview and reenactment as hearsay exceptions under M.R. Evid. 804(b)(3) (statements against penal interest); the trial court excluded them as not sufficiently trustworthy.
The court acquitted Armstrong of murder but convicted him of felony murder (based on the robbery) and robbery and sentenced him to concurrent long prison terms.
On appeal Armstrong challenged (1) exclusion of Fritze’s statements under Rule 804(b)(3) and (2) double jeopardy arising from convictions for both felony murder and the underlying robbery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Armstrong)	Held
Admissibility of Fritze’s out-of-court statements under M.R. Evid. 804(b)(3)	Statements were against penal interest and corroborated; should be admitted	Statements were trustworthy and exculpatory for Armstrong; admissible to show he was not involved	Trial court did not abuse discretion: excluded statements because corroborating circumstances did not clearly indicate trustworthiness, particularly due to motive to falsify
Double jeopardy from convictions for felony murder and underlying robbery	Conceded error on appeal; State agreed both convictions cannot stand separately	Dual convictions violate same-elements (Blockburger) test; sentences based on two crimes are illegal	Court agreed: vacated judgment and remanded for post-trial proceedings to merge counts and resentence on a single count

State v. Boucher, 652 A.2d 76 (Me. 1994) (trial court discretion governs admissibility under statements-against-interest rule)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980) (double jeopardy analysis in felony murder/underlying felony prosecutions)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (constitutional right to present a defense)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (limits on excluding defense evidence when exclusion serves no legitimate purpose)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (right to present a defense is subject to reasonable evidentiary restrictions)
State v. Robinson, 730 A.2d 684 (Me. 1999) (double jeopardy and related procedural principles)
State v. Murphy, 124 A.3d 647 (Me. 2015) (merger of counts and effect on sentencing)