State of Maine v. Havier Olmo
106 A.3d 396
| Me. | 2014Background
- In July and August 2012 confidential informants made controlled purchases of oxycodone and crack cocaine from a seller in Waterville; police observed the transactions and identified Olmo as the seller.
- On September 28, 2012, Olmo was arrested in Windham, briefly fled, was recaptured, and a search of his person yielded methylenedioxymethcathinone ("bath salts"), suboxone, and about 94.5 oxycodone pills.
- Chemical testing and manufacturer markings established that many of the oxycodone pills found on Olmo in September matched pills sold in the July transactions.
- A ten-count indictment charged small-quantity counts (July/August sales) and large-quantity counts (September search/possession and escape). Count VI was dismissed pretrial.
- Olmo moved to sever the July/August counts from the September counts on grounds of unfair prejudice (evidentiary spillover); the motion and later renewal/motions for mistrial were denied. After a jury trial Olmo was convicted on all but one count and sentenced; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Olmo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder of July/August (small-quantity) counts with September (large-quantity) counts was unfairly prejudicial and required severance under M.R. Crim. P. 8(d) | Evidence from September admissible in separate trial to show identity, intent, and a common scheme; joinder appropriate for judicial economy | September evidence is impermissible propensity evidence under M.R. Evid. 404(b) and, alternatively, its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under M.R. Evid. 403 | Denied severance; court held September evidence admissible as other-acts evidence to show identity/common scheme and limiting instruction mitigated prejudice |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions | State: identification and physical/chemical match support convictions | Olmo: challenged sufficiency | Court rejected Olmo’s contention (affirmed convictions) |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing instruction on criminal attempt for escape charge | N/A (State opposed) | Olmo requested an attempt instruction | Court rejected Olmo’s claim; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lemay, 46 A.3d 1113 (Me. 2012) (standard for severance; burden on movant to show undue prejudice)
- State v. Pierce, 770 A.2d 630 (Me. 2001) (offenses that are connected in any reasonable manner are properly joinable)
- United States v. Baltas, 236 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2001) (limiting instruction can guard against evidentiary-spillover prejudice)
- United States v. Richardson, 515 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2008) (garden-variety prejudice insufficient for severance; defendant must show deprivation of fair trial)
- U.S. v. Dominguez, 226 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2000) (ongoing illegal activity can constitute a common scheme supporting joinder)