State of Maine v. Richard A. Larsen Jr., 65 A.3d 1203

Larsen was convicted of burglary and theft for taking building materials from the Presque Isle Snowmobile Club, trial held January 2012.
Larsen's adult son testified but asserted the Fifth Amendment and did not testify; the State sought to admit two redacted statements the son gave to police.
The redacted statements allegedly incriminated both Larsen and the son and were read into evidence at trial.
The jury received additional circumstantial evidence suggesting Larsen’s involvement, including statements Larsen allegedly made and his storage of materials on a friend’s property.
The trial court admitted the redacted statements over objection; Larsen was sentenced, and he appealed, challenging both evidentiary and confrontation-clause grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of statements against interest when they implicate both declarant and accused	Statements were admissible under 804(b)(3) as against-interest, properly redacted.	The 804(b)(3) exception does not apply when the statement implicates both the declarant and the accused.	Not admissible under 804(b)(3); overruled as to both evidentiary basis and confrontation concerns.
Confrontation Clause limits on admission of testimonial statements from an unavailable declarant	Redacted statements are non-testimonial or admissible under hearsay exceptions despite unavailability.	Redacted statements are testimonial; admission without cross-examination violates Crawford.	Admission violated the Confrontation Clause; Crawford controls; cross-examination lacking.
Harmless error analysis for constitutional error in admitting the statements	Any error was harmless because evidence independently proves guilt.	The improperly admitted statements were the primary means linking Larsen to the burglary.	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; vacate judgment and remand.

State v. Platt, 704 A.2d 370 (Me. 1997) (analysis of admissibility of co-conspirator statements after redaction)
State v. Guyette, 36 A.3d 916 (Me. 2012) (limitations on using statements against a defendant when jointly tried)
State v. Mangos, 957 A.2d 89 (Me. 2008) (Confrontation Clause considerations in Maine context)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redacted co-defendant statement in joint trial safety and Confrontation Clause)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (uncross-examinable, incriminating statements against a non-declarant in a joint trial)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements of unavailable declarants require cross-examination)