State of Maine v. David Mullen, 231 A.3d 429

On July 1, 2018, David Mullen stood shirtless in the I‑95 median throwing rocks at cars; drivers stopped and restrained him until police arrived.
Officers and EMS observed an agitated, disoriented Mullen; police suspected "excited delirium" and Mullen admitted taking multiple drugs; he was taken to Maine Medical Center (MMC).
The court ordered a forensic mental examination; the State Forensic psychologist concluded Mullen exhibited excited delirium but had not reviewed MMC hospital records before issuing the report.
The State waited until one week before trial to obtain MMC records by search warrant, provided the records to defense immediately, and provided the warrant materials the day before trial.
Defense moved to suppress the MMC records as a sanction under M.R.U. Crim. P. 18(b) for the State’s late acquisition and disclosure; the trial court offered a continuance instead, which defense declined; trial proceeded and the court convicted Mullen of reckless conduct and aggravated criminal mischief.
On appeal, the Court concluded the State violated Rule 18(b) but affirmed convictions because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in offering a continuance rather than excluding the records; the State’s attempt to challenge a probation condition failed for lack of required appellate authorization.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying suppression of MMC records as a sanction for the State’s late acquisition/disclosure under M.R.U. Crim. P. 18(b)	State: Exclusion was unnecessary; records were defendant’s own, produced before trial, and a continuance was an adequate remedy.	Mullen: State’s delay undermined Rule 18(b) and prejudiced defense preparation; suppression was appropriate.	Court: State violated Rule 18(b), but offering a continuance (declined by defendant) was a permissible sanction; no abuse of discretion because no unrecoverable prejudice shown.
Whether the probation condition referring Mullen to drug court was unlawful (State cross‑appeal)	State: Condition lacked clear, enforceable consequences tied to success/failure and thus was improper.	Mullen: (implicit) sentencing condition was within court’s discretion.	Court: Did not decide on the merits because State failed to file a required notice of appeal and obtain written Attorney General authorization for a post‑trial appeal.

State v. Townes, 208 A.3d 774 (Me. 2019) (trial court has broad discretion in choosing sanctions for procedural violations)
State v. Gould, 43 A.3d 952 (Me. 2012) (appellate review of sanction choice requires showing of prejudice depriving fair trial)
State v. Poulin, 144 A.3d 574 (Me. 2016) (court must balance competing concerns when remedying procedural violations to ensure fundamental fairness)
State v. Ouellette, 208 A.3d 399 (Me. 2019) (limits on the State’s right to appeal; requirements for AG authorization)
State v. Asaad, 224 A.3d 596 (Me. 2020) (standard for reviewing trial‑court factual findings)