State of Maine v. Carter McBreairty, 137 A.3d 1012

Background

In April 2014 the State filed a 17-count complaint against Carter McBreairty arising from an undercover game warden’s year‑and‑a‑half investigation of hunting/fishing activity; McBreairty pleaded guilty to one count and proceeded to jury trial on the rest.
The jury acquitted McBreairty on three counts and convicted him on thirteen counts (hunting/fishing violations, hunting under the influence, loaded firearms in vehicles, theft of services, criminal trespass, etc.).
On the first day of trial McBreairty submitted an accord and satisfaction signed by the executive director of North Maine Woods purporting to release him from two theft‑of‑services counts; the court deferred ruling and later declined to dismiss those counts after the director recanted, saying he had been misled.
The State introduced photographs of fish as evidence but did not produce the actual fish during discovery; McBreairty later complained he could not inspect the fish and did not move for a new trial.
During closing the prosecutor misstated that a witness had been convicted for "lying . . . trying to protect a friend," adding a factual detail not in evidence; the court declined McBreairty’s request for a curative instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for specified counts (theft of services, loaded firearm in vehicle, hunting under the influence)	Evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions on Counts 10, 12, 14, 16, 17	Jury verdicts should be set aside because evidence did not establish elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, jury could rationally find elements beyond a reasonable doubt
Validity/enforceability of accord and satisfaction releasing theft counts	The written accord signed by injured party required dismissal of Counts 10 and 12	State challenged validity; signatory later said he was misled and would not have signed	No abuse of discretion in declining to dismiss; trial court appropriately deferred and considered conflicting evidence
Discovery breach for failing to produce actual fish	Failure to produce fish prejudiced defense because witness testified from poor photographs and defendant was denied meaningful inspection	State had produced photos and, per the warden’s report, retained the fish; defendant did not seek production or a new trial	Not preserved; no adequate record of prejudice; no obvious error found
Prosecutorial misstatement in closing (fact not in evidence re: witness lying to protect a friend)	Misstatement was misconduct that warranted a curative instruction or reversal	Misstatement was not material to elements, bore on credibility already impeached, and was harmless in context	Harmless error: no prejudice sufficient to affect outcome; no reversal required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jones, 46 A.3d 1125 (Me. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Milliken, 985 A.2d 1152 (Me. 2010) (reviewing evidence and inferences in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Medeiros, 997 A.2d 95 (Me. 2010) (fact‑finder entitled to draw reasonable inferences and assess credibility)
State v. Young, 476 A.2d 186 (Me. 1984) (court may dismiss prosecutions when injured party acknowledges satisfaction)
State v. Young, 777 A.2d 830 (Me. 2001) (abuse‑of‑discretion review where court rejects proffered accord and satisfaction)
State v. Reese, 991 A.2d 806 (Me. 2010) (defendant must show prejudice from discovery violation to obtain reversal)
State v. Pabon, 28 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2011) (plain‑error/obvious error standard requires error that is plain and affects substantial rights)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (framework for assessing prosecutorial misconduct and harmless error)
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (discussing line between acceptable and improper advocacy)
State v. Pendexter, 495 A.2d 1241 (Me. 1985) (central question is whether prosecutor’s comment is fairly based on facts in evidence)