181 A.3d 689
Me.2018Background
- Three family members (mother, daughter age 8, son age 10) were found murdered by ligature strangulation in December 2014; Coleman, the mother’s boyfriend and a resident in the home, was arrested and confessed to killing them.
- Autopsies by Maine Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Mark Flomenbaum found no vaginal trauma, an intact hymen on the daughter, abrasions and suspected dried blood in the vaginal area, and a plastic bag occluding the daughter’s airway; a sexual assault kit with four swabs was collected during the daughter’s autopsy.
- Laboratory testing identified blood and semen on swabs and the daughter’s shorts; sperm-cell DNA from the vaginal-area swab matched Coleman (statistical likelihood of another source < 1 in 300 billion). DNA mixtures on ligatures also included Coleman’s profile.
- Coleman was indicted for three counts of murder and one count of gross sexual assault; a jury convicted on all counts and the court sentenced Coleman to concurrent life terms for murder and a concurrent 20-year term for sexual assault.
- On appeal Coleman challenged (inter alia) the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination of Dr. Flomenbaum about his prior Massachusetts termination and a Connecticut judge’s adverse credibility finding; chain of custody for the sexual-assault kit; sufficiency of sexual-assault evidence; alleged prosecutorial misconduct in opening; and the sentencing standard.
Issues
| Issue | Coleman’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on cross-examining Chief Medical Examiner about prior Massachusetts termination and Connecticut credibility finding | Exclusion violated Rule 608(b) and Confrontation Clause; prior termination and judge’s finding were probative of truthfulness and bias | Prior ruling and termination were not probative of truthfulness; prior judge’s credibility view is inadmissible opinion evidence; Rule 403 and 608(b) justified exclusion | Court abused discretion in excluding impeachment about Massachusetts termination (relevant to administrative candor) but exclusion of Connecticut judge’s credibility finding was proper; error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for gross sexual assault | No direct proof of genital-to-genital contact or that victim was alive when contact occurred; thus insufficient evidence | DNA, forensic findings, positioning of victim, abrasions and blood permitted reasonable inference of a sexual act while alive | Evidence sufficient; circumstantial proof supported jury’s finding of genital contact while victim alive |
| Chain of custody for sexual-assault kit | Kit was left in ME office under unknown conditions Dec 22–24; this break required exclusion or rendered evidence inadmissible | Kit remained sealed; State accounted for location and sealed condition; minor breaks go to weight not admissibility | Trial court did not clearly err; chain of custody adequate and evidence properly admitted |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (opening statement wording) | Prosecutor misstated that sperm was found on a young girl’s vagina when protocol would call these "external genitalia" swabs | Terms used accurately described where semen was found (between labia majora/minora, external to hymen); opening statements are not evidence and were fair | No misconduct; opening fairly based on anticipated evidence and not prejudicial |
| Sentencing standard for aggravating factors | Court should require clear-and-convincing proof of aggravating factors at sentencing; otherwise abused discretion in weighing certain factors (domestic violence, victims’ conscious suffering) | Maine precedent permits consideration of reliable and relevant evidence; no new standard required | Court declines to adopt clear-and-convincing standard; sentencing court acted within discretion and life sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Diana, 89 A.3d 132 (Me. 2014) (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency and chain-of-custody principles)
- State v. Maderios, 149 A.3d 1145 (Me. 2016) (deference to trial court evidentiary rulings under Rules 403 and 608(b))
- State v. Williams, 52 A.3d 911 (Me. 2012) (limitation on extrinsic evidence of specific instances under Rule 608(b))
- State v. Almurshidy, 732 A.2d 280 (Me. 1999) (factors for assessing probative value of specific-instance impeachment)
- State v. Filler, 3 A.3d 365 (Me. 2010) (impeachment of State’s expert can affect probative value of credentials)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error framework for improper limitation on cross-examination)
- United States v. Cedeño, 644 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (discussion of admitting prior judicial findings of a witness’s false testimony for impeachment)
- United States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir. 1991) (prior employment misconduct admissible to impeach a medical expert’s credibility)