114 A.3d 214
Me.2015Background
- Baker and the victim were former intimate partners; an November 8, 2012 altercation at the victim’s home resulted in injuries and Baker’s arrest. The State charged Baker with attempted gross sexual assault, aggravated assault, and domestic violence terrorizing.
- At trial Baker testified he acted in self-defense after the victim attacked him; the State conceded self-defense was raised by the evidence, so the State bore the burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court instructed the jury on aggravated assault, then on the lesser included offense of assault, and on self-defense. Verbally the court told jurors that if the State proved the elements of aggravated assault they "should return a verdict of guilty." The court also instructed that if the State proved aggravated assault or assault they must then decide self-defense, but it did not tell jurors that they must acquit if the State failed to disprove self-defense.
- Jurors received written copies of the instructions that mirrored the problematic verbal instruction. During deliberations the jury asked for clarification about the "should return a verdict of guilty" language; Baker then objected for the first time and asked for corrected written instructions. The court gave a clarifying oral statement but declined to provide revised written instructions and allowed jurors to keep the originals.
- The jury convicted Baker of aggravated assault and domestic violence terrorizing. Baker appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury that it must acquit if the State failed to disprove self-defense, (2) failing to provide corrected written instructions, and (3) issuing inadequate remedial orders after other alleged discovery failures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions improperly allowed a guilty verdict without requiring consideration of self-defense | Instructions properly explained elements and self-defense; jurors were later instructed to consider self-defense | The initial instruction that jurors “should return a verdict of guilty” if elements were proved improperly allowed jurors to bypass self-defense and deprived Baker of acquittal if State failed to disprove justification | Court: Error was obvious; instructions authorized guilt without requiring jury to acquit when State failed to disprove self-defense; vacated judgment |
| Whether court’s later oral clarification cured the defect | Oral clarification sufficiently directed jurors to consider self-defense | The clarification was unclear and did not inform jurors they must acquit if State failed to disprove self-defense | Court: Clarification insufficient; defect remained |
| Whether failing to provide corrected written instructions prejudiced Baker | Written instructions mirrored the verbal charge; no prejudice shown | Retaining the original written instructions perpetuated the misleading language and increased prejudice | Court: Keeping erroneous written instructions compounded prejudice |
| Whether appellate relief is barred by Baker’s failure to contemporaneously object (preservation) | Failure to object before jury retired forecloses review except for obvious error | Baker contends obvious error review applies because the instruction was highly prejudicial and produced manifest injustice | Court: Applied obvious error standard and found errors met the test for manifest injustice; relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin, 916 A.2d 961 (Maine 2007) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- Ashley, 666 A.2d 103 (Maine 1995) (obvious error / manifest injustice standard)
- Herzog, 44 A.3d 307 (Maine 2012) (burden on State to disprove justification defenses)
- Dansinger, 521 A.2d 685 (Maine 1987) (preservation rules for jury instruction objections)
- Reddix v. State, 731 So.2d 591 (Miss. 1999) (instruction failed to notify jury that self-defense required acquittal)
- Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Maine 2012) (presumption that jurors follow instructions)
- Taylor v. Withrow, 288 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 2002) (due process concerns when jury may be allowed to bypass justification defenses)