State of Maine v. David M. Wyman, 107 A.3d 1134

April 20, 2011: Jeffrey Wyman drove off the road; he and his son David both testified at Jeffrey’s OUI trial that Jeffrey went off the road at ~9:38 a.m., called David twice at 9:45, David called back at 10:59 a.m., and a roommate’s phone was used to call 4-1-1 and a tow service sometime between 10:59 a.m. and 12:03 p.m.
Jeffrey was acquitted of OUI; the State later indicted Jeffrey and David for perjury based on their trial testimony.
At the perjury trial the State introduced Verizon billing records showing the roommate called 4-1-1 at 12:06 p.m., David’s phone activity including a 10:59 a.m. call to Jeffrey and a 12:03 p.m. incoming call, and Jeffrey’s calls showing origination towers near Millinocket (10:59) and Argyle (12:03).
Additional witnesses placed the vehicle off the road around noon: a motorist who called 9-1-1 immediately after seeing the crash, a 9-1-1 dispatcher who received that call at 12:01 p.m., and an officer who observed the vehicle off the road at 12:05 p.m.
Defense presented an electrical engineer who testified billing “origination” data are unreliable and billing records are inferior to raw network data.
Jury convicted David of perjury; he appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of evidence because no direct evidence contradicted his testimony and (2) erroneous admission of cell phone billing records under M.R. Evid. 403.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wyman)	Held
Sufficiency: whether direct evidence contradicted Wyman’s testimony about timing and substance of calls	The Verizon custodian’s testimony that the roommate dialed 4-1-1 at 12:06 p.m., corroborated by 9-1-1 caller, dispatcher, and officer, directly contradicted Wyman’s timeline	No direct evidence proving falsity; State relied only on circumstantial evidence, insufficient under the quantitative-evidence rule	The court held there was direct evidence (billing custodian’s testimony) plus corroborating witnesses; evidence sufficient for perjury conviction
Admissibility of billing records under Rule 403	Records were highly probative to show falsity and their meaning was explained by the custodian and clarified by defense expert; probative value outweighed any risk of confusion	Records were misleading and confusing without expert interpretation; custodian not qualified to explain “origination” and raw data would be more accurate	The court held admission was within discretion: records were probative, not unfairly prejudicial, and properly tested by custodial and expert testimony

State v. Haag, 48 A.3d 207 (Me. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Farrington, 411 A.2d 396 (Me. 1980) (perjury requires more than circumstantial evidence — quantitative evidence rule)
State v. Anthoine, 789 A.2d 1277 (Me. 2002) (direct evidence requirement for perjury convictions)
Saucier v. Allstate Ins. Co., 742 A.2d 482 (Me. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 403 evidentiary rulings)
Camp Takajo, Inc. v. SimplexGrinnell, L.P., 957 A.2d 68 (Me. 2008) (probative value vs. unfair prejudice under Rule 403)