181 A.3d 689
Me.2018Background
- In December 2014 the mother and her two children were found murdered by ligature strangulation; Coleman, the mother’s on‑and‑off boyfriend who had lived with them, was arrested after confessing to killing them.
- Autopsy of the daughter revealed an intact hymen, blunt facial trauma, superficial buttock abrasions, a plastic bag in her mouth, and suspected dried blood in the vaginal area; swabs were collected with a sexual assault kit.
- Forensic testing of the vaginal swabs and stained shorts detected semen; DNA from the sperm on the swab matched Coleman with a statistical likelihood excluding others at less than 1 in 300 billion.
- Coleman was tried and convicted by a jury of three counts of murder and one count of gross sexual assault and received concurrent life sentences on the murder counts and 20 years on the sexual assault count.
- Coleman appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the trial court improperly limited cross‑examination of the State’s Chief Medical Examiner regarding prior employment termination and a prior judicial credibility finding; he also challenged chain of custody, sufficiency of sexual assault evidence, prosecutorial misconduct in opening, and sentencing standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coleman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on cross‑examination of Chief Medical Examiner | Trial court properly excluded inquiry into unrelated prior judicial credibility finding and termination as unfairly prejudicial or irrelevant | Exclusion of impeachment evidence (Connecticut credibility finding and Massachusetts termination) violated right to confront and impaired ability to show bias/untruthfulness | Court abused discretion in excluding questioning about Massachusetts termination (relevant to administrative candor), but exclusion was harmless given overwhelming corroborating evidence; exclusion of inquiry into Connecticut judge’s credibility finding was proper |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in opening statement | Opening fairly described expected evidence (semen on girl’s vaginal area) | Mischaracterized swab type (should be "external genitalia" not "vaginal") and thus prejudiced jury | No misconduct; phrasing matched testimony about material found between labia majora/minora and opening was fair and non‑evidentiary |
| Sufficiency of evidence for gross sexual assault | Circumstantial evidence (location of semen, abrasions, victim positioning) supports inference of genital‑to‑genital contact while victim alive | No direct proof of genital‑to‑genital contact or that victim was alive during contact; conviction unsupported | Evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably infer sexual act and that contact occurred while victim alive |
| Chain of custody for sexual assault kit | Chain accounted for sealed kit custody among Medical Examiner’s Office, state police, and lab | Kit was stored under unknown conditions in Medical Examiner’s Office for ~2 days, undermining authentication | No clear error; chain sufficiently established and any minor gap goes to weight, not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maderios, 149 A.3d 1145 (Me. 2016) (deferential review of evidentiary rulings under Rules 403 and 608)
- State v. Almurshidy, 732 A.2d 280 (Me. 1999) (factors for admitting cross‑examination on specific instances under Rule 608(b))
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (harmless‑error framework for denial of cross‑examination under Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. Cedeño, 644 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (analysis of cross‑examining witness about prior judicial credibility findings)
- Flomenbaum v. Commonwealth, 889 N.E.2d 423 (Mass. 2008) (Massachusetts decision affirming for‑cause termination of Dr. Flomenbaum)
- State v. Waterman, 995 A.2d 243 (Me. 2010) (sentencing courts may consider "reliable and relevant" evidence for aggravating/mitigating factors)
- State v. Diana, 89 A.3d 132 (Me. 2014) (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency and chain‑of‑custody analysis)