State of Maine v. Nicholas W. Gagne, 159 A.3d 316

Defendant Nicholas Gagne was convicted after a seven-day jury trial of multiple counts including two counts of gross sexual assault, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of domestic violence assault, and one count of domestic violence terrorizing.
Alleged offenses occurred November 4–5, 2013; victim reported sexual assault, underwent hospital exam and SANE evaluation, and was audio-recorded by a detective at the hospital.
The State produced medical records late (a SANE report noting a "significant amount of blood" in the vaginal vault); defense moved for sanctions and a continuance seven days before jury selection.
At trial the victim testified but said she lacked memory for many details; the trial court admitted the hospital audio interview as a recorded recollection (M.R. Evid. 803(5)) over confrontation objections; defense declined to recall the victim after the recording was played.
The court excluded two defense witnesses (a classmate and her mother) who had not been disclosed before voir dire as last‑minute additions; defense argued they were necessary to rebut new evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gagne)	Held
Late disclosure of medical records / sanctions	No discovery violation; records were produced before trial and State had no reason to know a SANE report existed	Late production deprived Gagne of ability to prepare, obtain experts, and impeach; sought sanctions/continuance	Denial of sanctions affirmed: defendant received the records before trial, was not unfairly surprised, and no Brady prejudice shown
Admission of hospital interview (Confrontation Clause)	Recording admissible as recorded recollection and victim was available to be cross‑examined	Recording was testimonial and victim lacked present memory so confrontation rights were violated	Admission affirmed: victim testified at trial and was available for cross‑examination; Confrontation Clause not violated
Exclusion of two late‑disclosed witnesses	Late disclosure after jury selection would prejudice State and jurors; parties must disclose anticipated witnesses pre‑voir dire	Witnesses necessary to rebut State evidence and impeachment based on medical records and trial testimony	Exclusion affirmed: court acted within discretion; late disclosure could prejudice State and did not require reversal

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements require prior opportunity for cross‑examination if declarant is unavailable)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (Confrontation Clause does not bar use of prior statements when witness appears at trial but has impaired memory)
State v. Silva, 56 A.3d 1230 (Me. 2012) (review of denial of discovery‑sanctions motion; reversal only when denial deprived defendant of fair trial)
State v. Gould, 43 A.3d 952 (Me. 2012) (defendant aware of exculpatory evidence before trial cannot claim due process violation)
State v. Gorman, 854 A.2d 1164 (Me. 2004) (witness with impaired memory who appears at trial does not render prior statements inadmissible under Confrontation Clause)
State v. Cruthirds, 96 A.3d 80 (Me. 2014) (admission of recording where declarant later was available for cross‑examination)