121 A.3d 76
Me.2015Background
- Dechaine was convicted in 1989 of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry.
- Post-conviction DNA testing provisions were first enacted and later amended; the 2014 statute governs the current proceeding.
- A 1994-1995 post-conviction process previously upheld the conviction despite other DNA-related developments.
- In 2011, Dechaine sought to introduce evidence about alternative suspects and related issues; the court allowed limited consideration under 2138(10).
- From 2012 to 2013, the court conducted extensive DNA testing on the victim’s clothing, bandana, scarf, and nails; results included contested contamination concerns.
- In April 2014, the court denied Dechaine’s motion for a new trial, concluding the new DNA evidence did not create a probability of a different verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DNA results show probable different verdict. | Dechaine argues 2138(10)(C) requires a probable different verdict. | State contends contamination and other evidence prevent probative impact. | No; burden not met; probable verdict not shown. |
| Whether the court properly limited evidence to DNA-related matters. | Dechaine contends all old and new evidence should be admitted under 2138(10). | State contends the hearing is limited to DNA testing and source identity evidence. | The court properly limited to DNA-related evidence and source identity. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in not recusing the presiding judge. | Dechaine asserts bias due to long case history warrants recusal. | State contends no demonstrated bias; statute assigns to sentencing judge. | No abuse of discretion; no demonstrated bias. |
| Whether Maine's post-conviction DNA framework allows freestanding actual innocence claims. | Dechaine contends due process requires admission of non-DNA innocence evidence. | State argues 2138 limits to DNA-related issues and does not permit freestanding innocence claims. | Freestanding actual innocence claims barred; evidence limited to DNA context. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reese, 2013 ME 10 (Me. 2013) (standard for reviewing 2138 decisions; clear error and de novo review)
- Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (constitutional limits on postconviction innocence claims; due process considerations)
- State v. Blakesley, 2010 ME 19 (Me. 2010) (postconviction due process safeguards and procedures)