State of Maine v. Raymond Bellavance Jr., 65 A.3d 1235

In 2009, a fire destroyed the Grandview Topless Coffee Shop in Vassalboro, Maine.
In 2010, Bellavance was interviewed by investigators; he denied involvement and claimed he spent the night with others.
Bellavance was indicted on July 1, 2010, for two counts of arson under 17-A M.R.S. § 802(1)(A) and (1)(B)(2).
The State disclosed discovery material gradually, including a summary of an interview with a key witness (Mulkern).
In December 2011, Mulkern offered to testify for the prosecution in exchange for immunity; the State disclosed this plan just before trial continued proceedings.
The court permitted Mulkern to testify after an immunity agreement was entered; Bellavance argued this deprived him of time to prepare, but the court allowed questioning and limited preparation time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did merging two arson counts avoid double jeopardy?	Bellavance argues the indictment and verdict constituted double jeopardy.	State contends merger of two counts based on one act was proper to prevent multiple punishments.	Yes; merger of counts avoided double jeopardy.
Did the immunity arrangement for Mulkern infringe Bellavance’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel for effective preparation?	Bellavance claims the court erred by allowing Mulkern’s immunized testimony without adequate time to prepare.	State asserts court acted within its discretion and provided adequate preparation time.	No; court did not abuse discretion; sixth amendment rights not violated.

State v. Robinson, 1999 ME 86 (Me. 1999) (supports post-verdict merger to avoid double jeopardy)
State v. Cormier, 2003 ME 154 (Me. 2003) (affirms merger of alternate-theory counts for same act)
State v. Labbe, 2009 ME 94 (Me. 2009) (double jeopardy protection; evaluation of same act across counts)