215 A.3d 788
Me.2019Background
- In December 2008 the then-32-year-old Peter L. Robbins was accused of touching a 12-year-old girl's genitals and forcing her to touch his; police were notified the next day.
- Robbins was indicted in 2009 for assault and unlawful sexual touching; he lived abroad for several years and was tried in June 2018. The jury convicted him on both counts and he was sentenced; he appealed.
- At trial Robbins testified and made statements suggesting he came from a "good family," did not drink excessively, and that the allegation was a "false accusation" that offended him. He admitted some probation violations (drinking, associating with an ex-felon, and untruthful statements to his probation officer).
- The State cross-examined Robbins about multiple adjudicated federal probation violations and later elicited Robbins’s 2004 federal bank robbery conviction after the court found Robbins had "opened the door." The prosecutor also made in-court remarks suggesting Robbins’s guilt during cross-examination and closing argument.
- The trial court permitted inquiry into the probation violations and ultimately allowed the robbery conviction as rebuttal; Robbins’s motions to exclude were partly granted and partly overruled. On appeal the Court reviewed prosecutorial misconduct (obvious error) and multiple evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Robbins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s cross-examination comments improperly vouched for victim/shifted burden | Remarks were harmless and not objected to; intended to highlight inconsistencies and remind defendant of testimony | Comments vouched for victim, stated guilt as fact, shifted burden, and deprived Robbins of a fair trial | Court: Plain error; prosecutor improperly framed guilt as fact and shifted burden; error affected substantial rights and fairness => vacated judgment |
| Admissibility of adjudicated federal probation violations (as impeachment under M.R. Evid. 609/608) | Probation adjudications are admissible to impeach credibility and rebut defense statements; defendant opened door | Probation violations are not convictions under Rule 609 and were not probative of truthfulness under Rule 608(b); prejudicial character evidence | Court: Admission of the probation adjudications was erroneous under Rules 609 and 608(b); prejudicial and contributed to unfair trial |
| Admission of prior bank robbery conviction after defendant’s testimony (Rule 404(a)(2)) | Once defendant suggested good character/was horrified, State may rebut with conviction; court properly found door opened and admitted it | Earlier in limine the court excluded robbery conviction as unduly prejudicial; admitting it later was improper absent explicit Rule 403 balancing | Court: Admission of the robbery conviction as rebuttal was within discretion because defendant opened the door; not an abuse as to the conviction itself, though related probation evidence was problematic |
| Exclusion of evidence to refresh recollection and exclusion of reputation-for-truthfulness testimony | State objected to refreshing with a document the witness did not author and to insufficient foundation for reputation evidence | Ruling prevented effective cross-examination and impeachment | Court: Exclusion of refreshing was legally incorrect but harmless (no foundation and statement later admitted); exclusion of reputation evidence was proper for lack of foundational voir dire |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (obvious-error standard; prosecutorial vouching and burden-shifting analysis)
- State v. Hall, 172 A.3d 467 (Me. 2017) ("opening the door" to previously excluded evidence doctrine)
- State v. Burton, 198 A.3d 195 (Me. 2018) (Rule 609 balancing review)
- State v. Williams, 52 A.3d 911 (Me. 2012) (prohibition on counsel offering personal opinion on witness credibility)
- State v. Perkins, 199 A.3d 1174 (Me. 2019) (recitation of underlying facts and victim testimony relevance)