State of Maine v. Jeffrey P. Wyman, 107 A.3d 641

Jeffrey P. Wyman was indicted for perjury based on testimony he gave at his January 2012 OUI trial; the State alleged he and his son fabricated a timeline (that he drank after going off the road) and then lied at the OUI trial.
At the perjury trial the State introduced testimony from the arresting officer that, at the scene on April 20, 2011, Wyman said he had one beer at 8:30 a.m., which conflicted with Wyman’s OUI-trial testimony that he drank several beers after going off the road at 9:38 a.m.
The officer testified (on cross) that he believed “lies were told” at the OUI trial; the court issued a curative instruction after defense objection.
The State offered cell-phone billing records and called a Verizon custodian to explain the timing and “origination” columns; the court admitted the custodian’s lay explanation but barred technical location opinions.
Defense objected that the State’s questioning and closing argument impermissibly commented on Wyman’s post-arrest silence, that the officer’s opinion usurped the jury, and that the Verizon witness offered expert testimony not disclosed per a discovery order.
The jury convicted Wyman of perjury; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Wyman's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether eliciting that Wyman did not report drinking after going off the road and referencing “what was said before/after” impermissibly commented on silence and violated rights	Improper comment on post-arrest silence and right to counsel/due process	The questions compared a pre-arrest inconsistent statement with trial testimony to impeach and prove perjury, not to penalize silence	Admission and closing reference were proper; no constitutional violation; no mistrial abuse of discretion
Whether officer’s testimony that “there were lies told” was improper opinion/usurped jury	Officer’s opinion was nonresponsive, prejudicial, and invaded jury’s role	Testimony was responsive to defense questioning and addressed officer’s bias; court’s curative instruction cured any prejudice	Admission not an abuse of discretion; curative instruction deemed sufficient
Whether Verizon custodian’s explanation of billing “timing” and “origination” required expert designation under discovery order	Custodian’s explanation was expert testimony (location inference) and should have been disclosed as expert	Witness gave lay, factual explanation of record columns, not technical location opinions	Court did not abuse discretion; custodian’s lay explanation admissible; expert testimony not elicited

Ricci v. Delehanty, 719 A.2d 518 (Me. 1998) (trial court has broad discretion in controlling witness examination)
McKenna, 707 A.2d 1309 (Me. 1998) (scope of witness examination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Logan, 97 A.3d 121 (Me. 2014) (review standard for mistrial denial)
Johnson, 472 A.2d 1367 (Me. 1984) (prosecutorial reference to defendant silence can require new trial in certain circumstances)
Donnat, 311 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2002) (distinguishing inference from prior inconsistent statement versus silence)
Doughty, 399 A.2d 1319 (Me. 1979) (in perjury cases, disparity between pretrial statements and trial testimony admissible)
Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (curative instructions presumed effective absent exceptional prejudice)
Kirk, 873 A.2d 350 (Me. 2005) (standard of review for admission of disputed testimony)
Nelson, 994 A.2d 808 (Me. 2010) (trial court discretion in admitting witnesses' testimony)
Perez v. State, 980 So.2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (lay explanation of billing columns does not require expert qualification)