285 A.3d 262
Me.2022Background
- Defendant Jomo White (Black, with prior felony) went masked to a Presque Isle house on Sept. 9, 2019, armed with a handgun; an exchange of gunfire ensued and the victim survived multiple gunshot wounds.
- White later discarded the mask and gun, admitted both that he acted in self‑defense and that he had “shot to kill,” and made recorded statements played at trial.
- At trial White objected repeatedly to prosecutorial remarks: in opening the prosecutor asked jurors to “hold the defendant accountable for his criminal actions”; in closing the prosecutor emphasized the benefit of seeing live testimony when discussing White’s recorded statement (implicating his not testifying); and the prosecutor twice urged the jury to “find the defendant guilty.”
- The trial court overruled the argumentative‑opening objection, found some comments improper but cured them with jury instructions, and denied multiple mistrial motions.
- The jury convicted White of attempted murder and other offenses; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding prosecutorial errors—considered cumulatively and in context, including racial/identity considerations—impaired White’s substantial rights and warranted relief under the Maine Constitution and the Court’s supervisory power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue / fair‑cross‑section venire | Pretrial publicity and an all‑white venire in a largely white county denied fair trial and fair cross‑section | No record evidence of actual prejudice or systematic exclusion of Black jurors | Denial affirmed as stand‑alone claims; White failed to show presumed prejudice or systematic exclusion |
| Opening: asking jurors to “hold the defendant accountable for his criminal actions” | That language invited a civic duty to convict and improperly referenced unrelated criminal conduct (drug dealing) | Context argued permissible; prosecution tied comments to evidence | Error: the “accountable” exhortation improperly suggested a duty to convict and was aggravated by an argumentative opening |
| Closing: comment about benefit of seeing live testimony (implying defendant didn’t testify) | That remark improperly commented on White’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify | State said comment was inartful/neutral and aimed to assess an audio exhibit | Error: objectively an improper reference to defendant’s silence; Maine treats comments on silence with particular sensitivity |
| Cumulative error / remedy (new trial) | Errors together, plus racial and contextual factors, impaired substantial rights and require new trial despite strong evidence | State: errors harmless given strong evidence and not structural; appellate supervisory power limited by harmless‑error framework | Judgment vacated and new trial ordered under Maine Constitution and supervisory power; strength of evidence not dispositive given cumulative and contextual prejudicial effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (improper prosecutorial comments generally subject to harmless‑error analysis)
- United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) (appellate supervisory power constrained by harmless‑error review where evidence overwhelming)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (distinguishing structural from trial errors)
- State v. Tarbox, 158 A.3d 957 (Me. 2017) (Maine treats unambiguous comments on defendant’s silence as structural/error)
- State v. Begin, 120 A.3d 97 (Me. 2015) (prosecutor’s exhortation to “hold [the defendant] accountable” improperly suggests civic duty to convict)
- State v. Nobles, 179 A.3d 910 (Me. 2018) (context can distinguish permissible from impermissible comments about accountability)
- State v. Collin, 441 A.2d 693 (Me. 1982) (prosecutor must refrain from improper methods; court’s supervisory role to preserve trial fairness)
- State v. McDonald, 472 A.2d 424 (Me. 1984) (vacating conviction for prosecutorial comments that infected judicial process)
- State v. Santiago, 715 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1998) (supervisory power to guard against racial appeals and protect trial fairness)