State of Maine v. Joshua M. Robinson Sr., 118 A.3d 242

Background

In the early morning of Aug. 26, 2013 police found a pile of restaurant property outside a truck and Robinson’s cell phone on top of the pile; an open window at Beale Street Barbeque suggested entry.
The restaurant owner identified the recovered items as taken from his restaurant and recognized Robinson at the scene from prior employment years earlier.
The owner viewed a surveillance video a few days after the burglary and later told the State he thought the person in the recording was Robinson; the original video was automatically recorded over before trial and thus unavailable.
After voir dire, the court admitted the owner’s testimony about what he had observed in the now-missing video under M.R. Evid. 1004 and allowed his lay-identification opinion under M.R. Evid. 701; Robinson objected under Rules 701 and 403.
The jury convicted Robinson of burglary and theft; he appealed, arguing the owner’s identification testimony was not rationally based on perception and was prejudicial because the video was poor quality and the owner may have been biased.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of owner’s testimony about content of destroyed surveillance video under Best Evidence Rule (M.R. Evid. 1004)	Testimony should be excluded because original recording was the best evidence	Originals were lost through automatic overwrite, not bad faith; secondary evidence admissible under Rule 1004	Court: Originals lost without bad faith; owner’s testimony admissible under Rule 1004
Admissibility of owner’s identification as lay opinion (M.R. Evid. 701)	Identification not "rationally based" because video low-quality, owner influenced by belief Robinson had confessed, and jurors could not assess video themselves	Owner personally observed the video and knew defendant from years of contact; his perception and familiarity satisfy Rule 701	Court: Owner’s identification was grounded in firsthand perception and useful to jury; admission under Rule 701 was not an abuse of discretion
Whether the destroyed-video identification testimony was unduly prejudicial (M.R. Evid. 403)	Testimony was misleading and unfairly prejudicial given lack of original and poor-quality images	Probative value high because no other direct evidence placing Robinson inside; restrictions limited speculation	Court: Probative value outweighed prejudice; limiting instructions and cross-examination addressed concerns
Whether due-process/due-to-suggestiveness concerns require exclusion (reliability check like Neil v. Biggers)	Owner’s out-of-court identification might be unreliable or suggestive and require suppression	No government misconduct in the identification process; adversarial testing available at trial	Court: Due-process reliability check not triggered because no improper police conduct; opportunity for cross-examination sufficed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ormsby, 81 A.3d 336 (Me. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency and appellate review of verdict)
State v. Patton, 50 A.3d 544 (Me. 2012) (review of trial court’s admission of lay testimony under Rule 701 is abuse-of-discretion)
State v. Gurney, 36 A.3d 893 (Me. 2012) (factual-findings on evidentiary foundation reviewed for clear error)
State v. Williams, 395 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1978) (secondary evidence admissible when originals lost without bad faith; weight, not admissibility, is for jury)
State v. Miller, 741 A.2d 448 (Me. 1999) (framework for lay identification from photographs when witness’s familiarity adds probative value beyond the jury’s view)
State v. Cunningham, 691 A.2d 1219 (Me. 1997) (admission of lay testimony can be necessary to develop evidence at risk of loss)
State v. Watson, 751 A.2d 1004 (Me. 2000) (weight of witness credibility is for the jury)
Mitchell v. Kieliszek, 900 A.2d 719 (Me. 2006) (lay opinion must be rationally based on personal perception)
United States v. Jackman, 48 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (identification admissible when witness’s familiarity makes them better suited than jury to identify from photo)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (U.S. 2012) (due-process reliability check for identifications applies only when there is improper police conduct)