280 A.3d 199
Me.2022Background
- Rosario was indicted for aggravated trafficking in fentanyl (quantity ≥ 6 grams) based on a December 18, 2019 transaction arranged between a confidential informant (CI) and a person identified as “Peter.”
- MDEA recorded calls between the CI and Peter, obtained a search warrant for GPS data of Peter’s phone from T‑Mobile, and tracked the phone toward Houlton; GPS pings showed the phone near the agreed meeting place and later traveling south.
- Troopers observed a gray Kia with Massachusetts plates matching the tracking timeline, conducted a felony stop on I‑95, ordered occupants out, and handcuffed the driver and passenger; Agent Gaddis recognized the passenger as Rosario from a photograph.
- Phones, a rental contract, and other items were seized from the Kia; while law enforcement still had the Kia stopped, they also stopped a gray Toyota driven by Mosquea‑Guillen, from which two packages were seized (one ~111 g fentanyl admitted at trial).
- Rosario moved to suppress the evidence arguing lack of probable cause and that his removal from the vehicle amounted to a de facto arrest; he also challenged witness sequestration, jury instructions (possession and unanimity), and his sentence (including reliance on immigration status and unproven facts).
- Trial resulted in conviction by jury; sentence: 25 years (10 suspended), 4 years probation, $25,000 fine; Rosario appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / suppression of evidence | Rosario: stop/arrest lacked probable cause; his removal was a de facto arrest requiring suppression | State: collective police information (CI recordings, GPS, ID) provided probable cause to stop and arrest | Denial of suppression affirmed — probable cause existed prior to stop; arrest permissible |
| Sequestration / recall of witnesses | Rosario: State violated sequestration by recalling Campbell after he heard other testimony, causing prejudice | State: sequestration request was limited; recall related to discrete chain‑of‑custody issues and was permitted | No violation of the limited sequestration order; court did not abuse discretion in permitting recall |
| Possession instruction (voluntary possession / termination language) | Rosario: instruction's phrase "to terminate that possession" could mislead jury and undermine defense of timely termination of complicity | State: instruction tracked statutory involuntary‑possession language and was correct | Instruction proper; reflected statutory standard and not plain error |
| Specific unanimity instruction | Rosario: multiple theories/moments urged by State required specific‑unanimity instruction to ensure jurors agreed on same discrete act | State: evidence centered on a single, continuous incident (Dec. 18, 2019) | No obvious error in omitting specific unanimity instruction; single continuous incident supported verdict |
| Sentencing (use of immigration status / unproven facts / fine) | Rosario: court relied on immigration status, unadmitted 900 g package, and commercial motive without notice or sufficient proof; fine unsupported | State: sentencing court may consider reliable, relevant information beyond trial record; counsel addressed disputed points at sentencing | Sentence reviewed for legality only; court did not rely on immigration status or the unadmitted package and statements about multiple packages and motive were supported; fine within statutory bounds — no illegality found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cunneen, 205 A.3d 885 (Me. 2019) (standard of review and viewing suppression‑hearing facts in light most favorable to trial court)
- State v. Lagasse, 149 A.3d 1153 (Me. 2016) (probable cause includes collective police knowledge; very low threshold)
- State v. Martin, 120 A.3d 113 (Me. 2015) (tracking a phone and warrant‑based location data can support probable cause to search/stop)
- State v. Pickering, 491 A.2d 560 (Me. 1985) (sequestration of witnesses is discretionary to prevent conforming testimony)
- State v. Hanscom, 152 A.3d 632 (Me. 2016) (specific unanimity instruction required when evidence presents multiple discrete incidents)
- State v. Bennett, 114 A.3d 994 (Me. 2015) (sentencing courts may rely on relevant and factually reliable information beyond trial findings)
- State v. Donatelli, 995 A.2d 238 (Me. 2010) (officers may require occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit without converting stop to de facto arrest)