State of Maine v. Daudoit Butsitsi, 118 A.3d 222

Butsitsi was convicted of intentional or knowing murder and sentenced to 38 years, appealed alleging due process violations from statements about his national origin and court remarks at sentencing.
Facts at trial: Butsitsi shot the victim six times in a Portland apartment hallway after two earlier fights; he had obtained a gun that evening.
Butsitsi presented evidence of Congo upbringing and exposure to violence; victim was from the Congo region; letters and community input were submitted for sentencing.
Sentencing hearing (Dec 1, 2011): State sought 40–45 years; Butsitsi asked for the minimum 25 years, arguing mitigation from upbringing and exposure to violence.
The court referenced the community’s desire to set a communal example and discussed deterrence, fair warning, and the need to send a message against taking matters into one’s own hands.
Court ultimately imposed 38-year term, found mitigating factors outweighed aggravating ones somewhat, and ordered restitution; sentence was appealed and reinstated through post-conviction proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the sentencing remarks create due process bias based on national origin?	Butsitsi argues remarks show bias against his nationality.	State contends remarks weighed traditional sentencing factors, not nationality.	No reversible error; no appearance of bias.
What is the proper standard of review for unpreserved sentencing-bias claims?	Butsitsi urges de novo review per Kaba/Leung approach.	State urges ordinary obvious-error review.	Court adopts obvious-error review.
Were the court’s comments about community and victims’ families improper or biased?	Comments show improper weighting of nationality and community pressure.	Comments reflect balanced consideration of deterrence, community impact, and individual culpability.	Comments did not demonstrate bias; sentencing was proper.

State v. Schofield, 2005 ME 82 (Me. 2005) (obvious-error review for unpreserved sentencing issues)
State v. Nichols, 2013 ME 71 (Me. 2013) (due process data issues in sentencing; obvious-error review)
State v. Tapley, 609 A.2d 722 (Me. 1992) (use of pre-sentencing information)
State v. Gonzales, 604 A.2d 904 (Me. 1992) (sentencing based on individual culpability; not racial/national bias)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (U.S. 2011) (due process considerations in sentencing context)
In re Kaitlyn P., 2011 ME 19 (Me. 2011) (contemporaneous objection requirement and respect for judiciary)