221 A.3d 932
Me.2019Background
- In July 2017 a seven-week-old infant was found unresponsive while alone with her father, Brandon J. Coleman; hospital exams showed subdural hematomas, retinal hemorrhages, and external bruising consistent with abusive head trauma.
- Coleman was indicted on one count of Class A aggravated assault (17-A M.R.S. § 208(1)(A-1)), one count of Class B aggravated assault (17-A M.R.S. § 208(1)(A)), and one count of assault of a child under six (17-A M.R.S. § 207(1)(B)).
- At trial the State’s child-abuse pediatrician (Dr. Ricci) testified the injuries were clear abusive head trauma; defense expert (Dr. Scheller) offered a nontraumatic alternative (venous stroke/thrombophilia).
- During cross-examination the prosecutor questioned Dr. Scheller about whether he had communicated his clotting-disorder opinion to the child’s treating physicians and pursued ethical-duty implications; the prosecutor later relied on that theme in closing.
- The court instructed the jury on the aggravated-assault elements but, when explaining the injury element, folded the statutory definition of “bodily injury” into the charged statutory language in a way the defendant claimed was misleading.
- The jury convicted Coleman on all counts; Coleman appealed asserting prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous jury instructions on the injury elements, and insufficient evidence that the child’s injuries were permanent for the Class A count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coleman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct for cross-exam/closing attack on Dr. Scheller's ethics/credibility | Prosecutor may challenge expert credibility and may fairly argue the jury should weigh completeness/consistency of expert communication to treating physicians | Argued prosecutor improperly impugned Dr. Scheller as unethical and vouched improperly for credibility, requiring reversal | No misconduct: cross-examination and summation fairly attacked the sincerity/credibility of Dr. Scheller and were grounded in his testimony; no abuse of discretion or obvious error |
| Jury instructions on the injury element (use of "bodily injury" definition) | Instructions correctly described the injury elements as required by the statutes | Instruction conflated/embedded the statutory definition of "bodily injury" into the charged statutory language such that jury might think any physical pain/illness sufficed | Not reversible error: instruction could have been clearer, but taken as a whole it did not create plain error or prejudice the defendant |
| Sufficiency of evidence that injury was "permanent" (Class A aggravated assault) | Evidence (medical testimony, surgeries, guarded prognosis, testing showing extremely low cognitive/language/motor scores, ongoing severe deficits) supported a reasonable inference of permanent loss/impairment | Claimed record lacked proof that loss/substantial impairment would be permanent | Evidence sufficient: jury reasonably could find permanence from ongoing severe neurological injuries and prognostic testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (standards for obvious-error review of unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims)
- State v. Pabon, 28 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2011) (elements required to find obvious error in jury instructions)
- State v. Hanscom, 152 A.3d 632 (Me. 2016) (limits on prosecutorial argument and fair bases for attacking witness credibility)
- State v. Schmidt, 957 A.2d 80 (Me. 2008) (prosecutor may appeal to jury common sense without crossing into improper argument)
- State v. Weaver, 130 A.3d 972 (Me. 2016) (review of jury instructions in their entirety for fairness and adequacy)
- State v. Hall, 214 A.3d 19 (Me. 2019) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329 (Me. 1978) (cross-examination of expert about payment is admissible to test credibility)
- State v. Mannion, 637 A.2d 452 (Me. 1994) (scope-of-cross-examination rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)