230 A.3d 17
Me.2020Background
- Ronald Paquin, a former priest, was accused of repeatedly committing sexual acts against a boy who was 9–13 in the 1980s, including trips to Kennebunkport where abuse and provision of alcohol occurred.
- A 2017 grand jury indictment charged Paquin with multiple counts: Counts 1–13 and 30–31 (Class A) for the primary victim; Counts 14–29 (Class B) regarding a second alleged victim.
- Trial occurred November 26–29, 2018; jury convicted on Counts 1–9, 30–31 (related to the primary victim) and acquitted on Counts 14–26 (second alleged victim); Counts 10–13 were acquitted by motion and Counts 27–29 were dismissed during trial.
- Paquin was sentenced to concurrent 20-year terms (all but 16 years suspended) and appealed, raising six trial errors.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part but (1) vacated the conviction on Count 30 (double jeopardy with Count 5) and remanded to dismiss Count 30, and (2) vacated the State’s mid-trial dismissals of Counts 27–29 and remanded for entry of judgments of acquittal on those counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Paquin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Mid-trial production of victim's criminal history | No obligation to produce records mid-trial; had already produced what it possessed | Rule 16 implicitly requires production of complaining witness’s criminal history; important impeachment evidence | Court: Trial judge did not abuse discretion; defendant knew of self-reported history and made no prior specific request, so denying mid-trial production was not error |
| 2) Expert testimony on delayed disclosure by male victims | Testimony explains a common phenomenon and aids jury; limited to general delayed-disclosure concepts | Expert improperly bolstered victim credibility and opined on this case | Court: Admissible under M.R. Evid. 702; court limited testimony to general delayed disclosure and excluded clergy-specific references; no clear error on relevancy |
| 3) Double jeopardy: Counts 5 and 30 are duplicative | Counts differ because Count 30 specifies the act (oral contact) while Count 5 is broader | Convictions on both can arise from the same act; double jeopardy forbids multiple punishments for the same act/transaction | Court: Vacated conviction on Count 30 and remanded to dismiss it with prejudice because jury could have convicted both on the same act; Count 5 remains |
| 4) "On or about" jury instruction for Count 31 (date boundary) | Instruction was adequate when read as whole; court repeatedly told jury age requirement | Instruction allowed conviction despite possible finding the act occurred after the date-limitation (after victim turned 14) | Court: No obvious error given instructions overall and jury question response, but advised that clearer date-specific language would be better practice |
| 5) Cross-exam of detective about consistency between victims’ statements | Detective should not be asked to judge credibility; relevance limited when jury hears both witnesses | Asking whether the detective observed inconsistencies is a factual, not credibility, question and relevant | Court: Sustained objection was not abuse; credibility is for the jury and the detective’s opinion would be of limited help given both witnesses testified |
| 6) State dismissed Counts 27–29 during trial without Paquin’s explicit consent | State sought dismissal due to insufficient evidence; court treated dismissal as effectively acquittal | Rule 48(a) requires defendant consent to dismiss during trial; dismissal without consent violates protections | Court: Although labeled dismissal, the record shows the court would have granted acquittal for insufficient evidence; the action was an acquittal—vacated the dismissal and remanded to enter judgments of acquittal |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Blockburger test for determining whether two statutory provisions constitute the same offense for double jeopardy)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (trial-court ruling that effectively resolves factual elements for the defendant constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes)
- State v. Martinelli, 175 A.3d 636 (Me. 2017) (application of Blockburger and same-act/transaction double jeopardy analysis)
- State v. Silva, 56 A.3d 1230 (Me. 2012) (deference to trial court on discovery rulings and remedy standard for discovery violations)
- State v. Hodgdon, 164 A.3d 959 (Me. 2017) ("on or about" instruction evaluated in context; no plain error where instructions as whole made age requirement clear)