State of Maine v. Jay S. Mercier
87 A.3d 700
Me.2014Background
- Mercier was charged with murder for the 1980 death of Rita St. Peter; the body was found on Campground Road in Anson and the case remained unsolved until a 2005–2009 cold-case investigation yielded DNA and tire-impression evidence linking Mercier to the crime.
- DNA from a 2009 analysis matched Mercier from a cigarette butt Mercier discarded; tire impressions from 1980 also aligned with Mercier’s vehicle.
- Mercier was indicted on September 16, 2011, and pleaded not guilty; motions to suppress vehicle-search evidence and Mercier’s statements were denied.
- A six-day trial in September 2012 featured Dr. Margaret Greenwald, the State’s chief medical examiner, testifying about injuries and cause of death based in part on an autopsy conducted by another examiner; Mercier moved to exclude such testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds.
- The court allowed Dr. Greenwald to testify while preventing disclosure of the autopsy report’s factual findings; Mercier was convicted of intentional or knowing murder and sentenced to 70 years; he appealed alleging Confrontation Clause violations among other issues.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the conviction, concluding the challenged testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause and rejecting other arguments.]
- Issues: 4
- 1) Issue: Confrontation Clause impact of medical examiner testimony relying on autopsy by non-testifying examiner
- Plaintiff's Argument: Mercier argues this violates confrontation rights
- Defendant's Argument: Mercier
- Held: No violation; Mitchell/Williams/Bullcoming framework controls; testimony permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause and autopsy reliance | Mercier relies on non-testifying autopsy writer | Mercier in favorable comparison to Mitchell | No violation; admissible testimony. |
| Bullcoming impact on Mitchell framework | Bullcoming undermines Mitchell | Bullcoming distinguishes live testimony from documents | Bullcoming does not require reversal. |
| Other evidentiary challenges | Other merits lack support | Arguments unpersuasive | Conviction affirmed. |
| Remedy for prosecutorial statements | Prosecutor statements require sua sponte remedy | No reversible error | No reversal ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause testimonial evidence requires cross-examination opportunity)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Lab-certification testimony deemed testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (Certifying lab report without tester cross-exam violated Confrontation Clause)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (Expert testimony admissible when not testifying to factual basis of outside data)
- Mitchell, 2010 ME 73 (Me. 2010) (Live medical examiner testimony relying on autopsy by another examiner permissible)
- Ducasse v. State, 2010 ME 117 (Me. 2010) (Confrontation Clause framework in Maine)