State of Maine v. Kristina I. Lowe
124 A.3d 156
| Me. | 2015Background
- Shortly after midnight on Jan. 7, 2012, Kristina Lowe (age 18) crashed a vehicle on Route 219, killing two passengers and seriously injuring Lowe and another passenger; evidence at trial supported that Lowe was driving.
- Witnesses reported Lowe had been drinking (Jagermeister, Four Loko) and seen smoking marijuana at a party earlier; one witness removed her keys after she drove in the driveway and hit a stump.
- Lowe initially denied driving, later admitted to Detective Edstrom that she was driving and said a backseat passenger grabbed the wheel; police drew blood hours after the crash showing .04% BAC and presence of active THC and an inactive THC metabolite.
- Lowe and the surviving passenger walked about a mile back to the party, did not seek help from nearer houses, appeared injured and covered in blood, and Lowe asked others not to call police; she was later charged with two counts of manslaughter, two counts of aggravated OUI, and aggravated leaving the scene.
- Pretrial motions included a change of venue and exclusion of impairment-related evidence (both denied); at trial the jury convicted Lowe of two counts of manslaughter and aggravated leaving the scene, but acquitted on the OUI counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lowe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue for pretrial publicity | Publicity did not prevent fair trial in Oxford County; voir dire could identify impartial jurors | Pretrial publicity was intense and biased the community, requiring venue change | Denied: no presumed or actual prejudice; court excused biased jurors and voir dire adequate |
| Mistrial based on testimony of Earl Lowe recounting Kristina’s hospital statements | Earl’s testimony was admissible and largely cumulative of other evidence | Earl recounted statements from suppressed portion of Lowe’s interview, warranting mistrial | Denied: father’s statements could have been made outside suppressed interview, were cumulative, not exceptionally prejudicial |
| Admission of expert testimony re: THC metabolites in blood | Metabolite evidence is admissible under statute and relevant to impairment; probative value outweighed any prejudice | Metabolite evidence unduly prejudicial under M.R. Evid. 403 and should be excluded | Admitted: statutory admissibility and probative value (corroborating other testimony) outweighed minimal prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for manslaughter and leaving the scene | Evidence (drinking, marijuana, high speed, looking at phone, leaving scene without aid) supported reckless/criminally negligent conduct and intentional/knowing leaving | Acquittal on OUI shows no impairment; evidence insufficient to prove gross deviation or intent to avoid assistance | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, jury rationally could find reckless or criminally negligent manslaughter and intentional/knowing leaving the scene |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brockelbank, 33 A.3d 925 (Me. 2011) (standard for viewing facts in the light most favorable to the State)
- State v. Dwyer, 985 A.2d 469 (Me. 2009) (standard of review and grounds for change of venue based on pretrial publicity)
- State v. Saucier, 776 A.2d 621 (Me. 2001) (presumed prejudice test for pretrial publicity)
- State v. Logan, 97 A.3d 121 (Me. 2014) (mistrial review; requires exceptionally prejudicial circumstances or prosecutorial bad faith)
- State v. Glover, 89 A.3d 1077 (Me. 2014) (abuse of discretion review for Rule 403 evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Sanchez, 89 A.3d 1084 (Me. 2014) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Finnemore, 690 A.2d 979 (Me. 1997) (inconsistent verdicts do not invalidate guilty verdicts on separate counts)
- State v. St. Yves, 751 A.2d 1018 (Me. 2000) (jury determinations of gross deviation and reasonableness left undisturbed if rational)