State of Maine v. Marcus Asante, 236 A.3d 464

Background

Marcus Asante and four others traveled from Massachusetts to Maine to buy $20,000 of marijuana from the victim; they met at a gas station and rode together to a secluded dirt road.
The victim was shot nine times in his car and died; marijuana and the gun linked to the shooting were later found in Asante’s apartment.
Asante was indicted for intentional or knowing murder and Class A robbery (charged under 17-A M.R.S. § 651(1)(D) & (E)); he claimed self-defense at trial while the State argued the killing occurred in the course of a planned robbery.
During jury instructions (to which Asante did not object), the court: (a) instructed that a robbery conviction would negate a self-defense claim, and (b) described robbery elements using “or” in a way that allowed conviction based on theft plus being armed or knowing an accomplice was armed — without requiring a finding that bodily injury was inflicted "at the time of" the theft.
The jury convicted on murder and robbery; Asante appealed. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held the robbery instruction misstated the statutory elements, which in turn rendered the self-defense instruction erroneous, and vacated both convictions and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Asante)	Held
Whether the robbery instruction misstated the elements of § 651(1)(E) by permitting conviction based on theft plus being armed or knowing an accomplice was armed without a required finding that bodily injury was inflicted at the time of the theft	The instruction was legally sufficient; the Legislature could not have intended additional proof requirements	The instruction used “or” improperly and allowed conviction without proving the § 651(1)(D) bodily-injury element required by § 651(1)(E) as charged	The instruction was erroneous: § 651(1)(E) requires proof that the actor was armed (or knew an accomplice was) AND that the actor or accomplice intentionally inflicted or attempted bodily injury at the time of the theft; verdict therefore could be based on impermissible criteria
Whether the self-defense instruction improperly relieved the State of its burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt by tying disproof to a flawed robbery finding	The court correctly instructed that a robbery conviction disproves self-defense	The self-defense instruction intruded on the jury and, combined with the defective robbery instruction, failed to require the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt	Because the robbery instruction could permit conviction without the bodily-injury element necessary to negate self-defense, the self-defense instruction was inaccurate; convictions vacated
Whether the unpreserved instructional errors warrant review under the obvious (plain) error standard	The State urged deference but addressed issues on the merits in briefing	Asante invoked plain-error review and argued the errors were plain and prejudicial	The court applied the obvious-error test, found the errors plain, affecting substantial rights and the fairness/integrity of proceedings, and exercised discretion to correct them

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pabon, 28 A.3d 1147 (Maine 2011) (standard for noticing unpreserved obvious/plain error)
State v. Delano, 111 A.3d 648 (Maine 2015) (jury instruction erroneous if it permits verdict based on impermissible criteria)
State v. Ouellette, 37 A.3d 921 (Maine 2012) (State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt; if State disproves at least one element of self-defense, it may convict if other crime elements are proven)
State v. Bradley, 521 A.2d 289 (Me. 1987) (self-defense unavailable to one committing or about to commit a robbery)
State v. Solomon, 120 A.3d 661 (Maine 2015) (statutory interpretation of criminal elements is reviewed de novo)
State v. Cote, 462 A.2d 487 (Me. 1983) (vacatur/remand appropriate where instructional error may have affected verdict)