139 A.3d 914
Me.2016Background
- On October 6, 2013, Merrill Kimball shot and killed Leon Kelley during a dispute at Stan Brown’s farm involving Brown’s family and Kimball’s wife, Karen, over honey and Karen’s inclusion in Brown’s will.
- Kelley (unarmed) encountered Kimball in the driveway; after a brief physical encounter (pushing/turning), Kimball pulled a handgun and shot Kelley multiple times; Kelley later died.
- Kimball was indicted for intentional or knowing murder, tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment plus restitution; he appealed.
- At trial the court instructed the jury on murder, manslaughter, self-defense, and imperfect self-defense but declined to give an adequate-provocation manslaughter instruction after deliberations were underway.
- The court admitted evidence that Kimball had consumed two rum-and-cokes earlier that day and limited some evidence about the inter-family dispute; Kimball later argued a Brady discovery issue regarding the Chief Medical Examiner’s prior employment.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Kimball's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing an adequate-provocation manslaughter instruction | Instruction not generated by evidence; would confuse jury; self-defense instruction subsumes provocation here | Requested instruction should have been given because provocation could reduce murder to manslaughter | Affirmed — no instruction required: evidence insufficient as a matter of law to show objectively reasonable extreme anger/fear; jury instructions on self-defense appropriately covered the issues |
| Admissibility of testimony that Kimball drank earlier that day | Drinking relevant to state of mind, judgment, impulsivity, and credibility | Drinking irrelevant absent proof of impairment and unduly prejudicial | Affirmed — evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; admission within trial court’s discretion under Rules 401/403 |
| Limiting evidence about animosity between families over the will and honey | Court admitted extensive evidence; limited only minor, cumulative or distracting matters to focus trial | Limitation improperly curtailed defense evidence | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in narrowly limiting evidence to avoid mini-trial and keep focus on culpability |
| Brady claim about nondisclosure of Chief Medical Examiner’s prior employment (Massachusetts) | State had no superior access to the publicly available Massachusetts opinion; no Brady violation | Failure to disclose Flomenbaum opinion created a discovery/Brady violation | Affirmed — record shows no Brady violation given the public availability and no evidence State had unique possession of the material |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hanaman, 38 A.3d 1278 (Me. 2012) (describes standards for when a requested jury instruction must be given and interaction between self-defense and adequate-provocation manslaughter)
- State v. Lockhart, 830 A.2d 433 (Me. 2003) (holding heated argument and physical contact insufficient as adequate provocation to justify deadly force)
- Flomenbaum v. Commonwealth, 889 N.E.2d 423 (Mass. 2008) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion referenced regarding the Chief Medical Examiner)