State of Maine v. Lee Perry, 2017 ME 74

Background

Victim and Lee Perry were intimate partners living together; on Dec. 5–6, 2014 Perry assaulted the victim in multiple episodes: shoved her (breaking her wrist), strangled her (causing incontinence and other symptoms), and later cut her hand with a knife while threatening to kill her.
Police responded after the victim called; an officer entered the apartment, awakened Perry in his bedroom, and asked questions without giving Miranda warnings; Perry answered and denied hurting the victim; the officer then left, decided to arrest, re-entered, and arrested Perry.
Perry was indicted on seven counts including three aggravated-assault counts charging distinct theories (shoving/wrist fracture; strangulation/extreme indifference; assault with a dangerous weapon for the knife incident) and related domestic-violence counts.
Perry moved to suppress his pre-arrest statements; the trial court denied suppression, concluding he was not in custody for Miranda purposes.
At trial the State presented a medical expert to explain the technical meaning and physiological effects of ‘‘strangulation.’’ The jury convicted Perry on all counts; the court imposed concurrent and consecutive sentences, including consecutive terms for the strangulation count and the dangerous-weapon assault count.
Perry appealed, challenging denial of suppression, admission of the strangulation expert, and the imposition of consecutive sentences; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Perry)	Held
Whether pre-arrest statements should be suppressed because Perry was "in custody" and Miranda warnings were required	Officer-initiated interview in victim’s apartment was noncustodial; statements admissible	Perry contends waking and questioning him in his bedroom, without Miranda, was custodial and required suppression	Court held noncustodial under an objective Michaud-factor analysis; suppression denied
Whether the court abused discretion by admitting expert testimony on strangulation	Expert testimony explaining technical definition and physiological symptoms aids jury in distinguishing ‘‘strangulation’’ from ‘‘choking’’	Perry argued lay jurors could decide statutory element without expert and expert testimony was unnecessary	Court held M.R. Evid. 702 permitted the expert to help the jury understand the technical term and symptoms; admission not an abuse of discretion
Whether consecutive sentences for aggravated assault (extreme indifference) and aggravated assault (dangerous weapon) were improper	State argued crimes were separate episodes and sufficiently serious to justify consecutive sentences under 17-A M.R.S. §1256(2)(A) or (D)	Perry argued offenses arose from single episode so sentences should run concurrently	Court upheld consecutive sentences: evidence supported discrete episodes and the extreme seriousness of conduct warranted consecutive terms under §1256(2)(A) and (D)
(Related) Whether expert’s testimony invaded jury fact-finding on statutory element	State: expert addressed technical meaning and symptoms, not case-specific opinion on whether strangulation occurred	Perry: expert effectively told jury what constituted strangulation, usurping jury role	Court: expert limited to general definition/effects and did not opine that the victim was strangled; testimony assisted, not usurped, jury

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hurd, 8 A.3d 651 (Maine 2010) (standards for viewing facts in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Cote, 118 A.3d 805 (Maine 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Dion, 928 A.2d 746 (Maine 2007) (custody analysis in-home questioning)
State v. Holloway, 760 A.2d 223 (Maine 2000) (definition of custody for Miranda purposes)
State v. Michaud, 724 A.2d 1222 (Maine 1998) (nonexhaustive factors for Miranda custody inquiry)
State v. King, 136 A.3d 366 (Maine 2016) (inadmissibility of uncounseled custodial statements)
State v. Mooney, 43 A.3d 972 (Maine 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review of expert-evidence rulings under M.R. Evid. 702)
State v. Downs, 962 A.2d 950 (Maine 2009) (standard and statutory framework for consecutive sentences)
State v. Bunker, 436 A.2d 413 (Me. 1981) (consecutive sentences improper where one offense was committed to facilitate another)