State of Maine v. Gregory W. Vrooman
2013 ME 69
| Me. | 2013Background
- Vrooman was convicted of multiple counts related to alleged sexual offenses against his fiancée’s daughter and moved to suppress evidence from a computer search warrant and to exclude pornography-related testimony.
- The warrant affidavit alleged that Vrooman viewed sexually suggestive images on home and work computers and had a pornography issue with counseling; it sought evidence of intentional touching.
- At the time of move-in to the new house (Oct 2009), the alleged incidents of touching occurred in the victim’s bedroom; the victim was 12 years old when moved in.
- The victim and her brother testified that Vrooman touched the victim's breasts and genitals while in the bedroom, and the brother observed improprieties on two occasions.
- In Nov 2010, the victim disclosed the abuse, leading to charges; trial occurred in 2012, resulting in convictions on all counts except one tampering charge acquittal.
- Pretrial rulings admitted limited testimony about Vrooman’s pornography use to show absence of mistake and intent; the actual images were largely excluded or limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause sufficiency for the warrant | Warrant lacked probable cause. | Probable cause supported by the affidavit. | Probable cause supported; warrant valid. |
| Jurats and clerical error impact | Juror affidavit jurat defect renders warrant invalid. | Affiant was correctly identified; jurat error harmless. | Clerical jurat error did not affect validity. |
| Admission of computer-search evidence under Rule 401/404(b) and 403 | Evidence shows intent and absence of mistake. | Evidence is prejudicial and lacks direct relevance. | Admissible with limiting procedures; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Trial testimony about a 'porn issue' | General pornography testimony admissible under 403/404(b). | General testimony overly prejudicial and prejudges the jury. | Admission not clearly erroneous; did not prejudice substantial rights. |
| Scope of Rule 403 balancing for images evidence | Images shown were probative of intent. | Images were prejudicial and irrelevant to charged conduct. | Court properly balanced; focused on testimony about images, not the images themselves. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gurney, 36 A.3d 893 (Me. 2012) (probable cause and warrant validity reviewed on factual/timely basis)
- State v. Nigro, 24 A.3d 1283 (Me. 2011) (probable cause evaluated by review of affidavit; fair probability standard)
- Ward v. State, 624 A.2d 485 (Me. 1993) (relaxed specificity in warrant application requirements)
- State v. Lemay, 46 A.3d 1113 (Me. 2012) (evidence of other acts admissible to show motive/intent)
- State v. Pabon, 28 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2011) (obvious-error standard for Crim. P. 52(b) applications)
- Herrick v. Theberge, 474 A.2d 870 (Me. 1984) (sloppily prepared jurat does not necessarily invalidate a warrant)
- Drewry v. State, 946 A.2d 981 (Me. 2008) (review of suppression rulings on de novo/legal questions)
- Johnson v. State, 962 A.2d 973 (Me. 2009) (addressing admissibility and evidentiary issues on appeal)