State of Maine v. John A. Fahnley
119 A.3d 727
| Me. | 2015Background
- In August 2008 a 14-year-old male victim stayed at defendant John A. Fahnley’s home; the victim later testified Fahnley performed oral and other sexual acts on him while he was intoxicated and unconscious.
- Fahnley was charged by complaint in December 2012 and later indicted on gross sexual assault and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor; jury trial occurred in February 2014.
- The State called four witnesses including the victim and his mother; the mother testified (without detailing the abuse) that the victim told her about “what had happened” a few days after his 18th birthday in September 2011.
- Defense did not object to that testimony at trial; defense emphasized inconsistencies in the victim’s prior statements during cross-examination and closing.
- In closing, the prosecutor argued that the victim was the only witness besides Fahnley who could testify about events in the house and made arguments invoking communal harm; defense objected to parts of rebuttal and the court gave a curative instruction.
- Jury convicted Fahnley of one Class C sexual abuse charge (acquitted of gross sexual assault); court sentenced him to five years with three years to serve (others suspended). Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of mother’s testimony as a “first complaint” (hearsay) | State: testimony that victim told his mother when he reported was admissible to rebut assumption that no complaint was made (first complaint doctrine) | Fahnley: mother’s testimony was hearsay and inadmissible; also not a true "first" complaint and was delayed years after the assault | Court: Admission was not plain error. First complaint is not a hearsay exception but a limited non-hearsay purpose; delay was explainable and the mother’s report was admissible to rebut the assumption that nothing happened. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — preserved remarks (invoking community protection, sympathy) | State: rebuttal rhetoric was proper argument about harm and context | Fahnley: remarks improperly appealed to emotion and asked jury to protect society | Court: Some statements inappropriate, but the trial court’s prompt, targeted curative instruction cured any prejudice; harmless. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — unpreserved remarks (comments implying absence of defendant’s testimony; vouching) | State: prosecutor argued victim was the only one who could testify about events; said victim’s testimony was "very strong" | Fahnley: comments indirectly commented on defendant’s silence and impermissibly vouched for witness credibility, violating Fifth Amendment and prosecutorial limits | Court: Reviewed for obvious error; declined to find plain error given jury instructions (including pretrial instruction that defendant’s silence is not evidence), trial context, and lack of clear requirement for sua sponte action. No reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Diana, 89 A.3d 132 (Me. 2014) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Lovejoy, 89 A.3d 1066 (Me. 2014) (obvious error standard for unpreserved claims)
- State v. Krieger, 803 A.2d 1026 (Me. 2002) (first complaint admissible to rebut assumption that no assault occurred; limits on details)
- State v. True, 438 A.2d 460 (Me. 1981) (first complaint doctrine described and justified)
- State v. Lafrance, 589 A.2d 43 (Me. 1991) (distinguishing admissibility of bare complaint from admission of details under hearsay exceptions)
- State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (prosecutorial misconduct review; curative instruction can cure improper argument)