State of Maine v. Reginald Dube
2014 ME 43
| Me. | 2014Background
- Indicted in 2011 on two counts of gross sexual assault, one count of unlawful sexual contact, and one count of furnishing liquor to a minor for alleged events in Oct 2010 and Dec 2010.
- Trial delayed through multiple lists; jury finally seated Dec 5, 2012.
- Two days before trial, Dube moved to continue and to compel production of protected records under Rule 17(d) for victim’s hospitalization history.
- Court held a hearing, allowed State to participate, and denied the motions for late filing and lack of Watson-based showing of a fishing expedition.
- Trial lasted two days; verdicts for December 2010 conduct (guilty on some counts, not guilty on others); sentence imposed; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion in limine was properly denied | Dube asserts hospital records could reveal exculpatory evidence | Dube contends records would impeach victim’s motive to fabricate | Denied; court found it was a fishing expedition and within Watson limits |
| Whether the State’s participation in the motions hearing was proper | State participation violated defendant’s right to trial strategy | State participation allowed due to late motions and linked issues | Affirmed; State could participate without infringing due process given the defense’s disclosed theory |
| Whether the denial of the continuance was an abuse of discretion | Continuance needed to procure records; time to prepare insufficient | Eleven months past deadline; no prejudice shown; trial proceeding timely | Not an abuse of discretion; no substantial prejudice shown |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions | State’s evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient to convict on some charges | Evidence sufficient to support convictions on the maintained counts |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watson, 1999 ME 41, 726 A.2d 214 (Maine 1999) (required threshold showing for subpoenas; not a fishing expedition when lacking)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (limits on generalized asserts of rights; need specific evidentiary showing)
- Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1951) (invalidating a broad catch-all subpoena clause)
- State v. Rastrom, 261 A.2d 245 (Me. 1970) (continuance based on time to prepare a defense; discretionary)
- Amouri v. Holder, 572 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (denial of continuance not per se prejudicial; due process considerations)