293 A.3d 423
Me.2023Background
- Defendant David P. Hunt Jr. was indicted and tried for multiple sexual offenses against his stepdaughter, including two counts of gross sexual assault and two counts of unlawful sexual contact, based on conduct occurring when she was a child in multiple states; the jury convicted on all counts and the court sentenced Hunt to concurrent prison terms and lifetime supervised release.
- The victim first disclosed as an 11‑year‑old in 2012; a clerical error delayed prosecution until 2017 when the case was re‑investigated and Maine charges were brought in 2018.
- Defense sought Massachusetts therapy and child‑protective records authorized by Maine subpoenas in 2019; despite repeated continuances over several years, the records were not produced and Hunt sought enforcement of the subpoenas the day before trial.
- At trial (Feb. 22–24, 2022) masking was required by judicial post‑pandemic management orders; jurors and witnesses testified while masked, with limited accommodations for hearing.
- After conviction, Hunt appealed raising four principal issues: denial of a continuance to obtain out‑of‑state records, the constitutionality of masking (Confrontation Clause), alleged prosecutorial misconduct in opening/closing/rebuttal, and several evidentiary rulings admitting witness testimony and out‑of‑state act evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance to enforce MA subpoenas | Hunt: denial violated due process and abused discretion; needed records for defense | State: records unavailable or of little value; defendant delayed enforcement and counsel was ready to proceed | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion given lengthy delay, prior continuances, timing of request, and lack of prejudice |
| Masking requirement and Confrontation Clause | Hunt: masks prevented jury from seeing faces and impaired ability to assess credibility; violated Sixth Amendment | State: masking mandated by court order for public health; demeanor, voice, and body language still observable; accommodations made | No violation: partial masking permissible under Craig; reliability and confrontation elements preserved |
| Prosecutorial error (opening/closing/rebuttal) | Hunt: State shifted burden, vouched for victim, urged verdict improperly | State: arguments tied to evidence; vigorous advocacy is allowed; court instructed jury on burden and closing not evidence | No prosecutorial error: remarks were grounded in evidence, cured by jury instructions; no obvious prejudice |
| Evidentiary rulings (detective memory, school nurse, out‑of‑state acts, communications with mother) | Hunt: improper expert testimony, prejudicial lay inferences, admission of prior out‑of‑state acts and exclusion of communications limited defense | State: detective’s comments were lay observations; nurse testimony was factual; prior sexual acts admissible to show relationship/motive/opportunity; limiting instructions given | No clear error or abuse: testimony admissible as lay/permissible, limiting instructions adequate, in limine ruling on mother communications not shown to be prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beeler, 281 A.3d 637 (Me. 2022) (view evidence in light most favorable to State on sufficiency review)
- State v. Gaston, 250 A.3d 137 (Me. 2021) (standard for reviewing denial of continuance and balancing for fundamental fairness)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (Confrontation Clause permits exceptions to face‑to‑face confrontation when necessary to further an important public policy and reliability is assured)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (Confrontation Clause guarantees face‑to‑face meeting but not absolute right in all circumstances)
- State v. Krieger, 803 A.2d 1026 (Me. 2002) (prior similar sexual conduct admissible to show relationship, intent, opportunity)
- State v. Robbins, 215 A.3d 788 (Me. 2019) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness credibility)
- State v. Westgate, 234 A.3d 230 (Me. 2020) (limits on vouching and commentary on witness credibility)
- State v. DeLong, 505 A.2d 803 (Me. 1986) (historical precedent admitting evidence of prior sexual relations to show relationship or intent)