State of Maine v. Samadi M. Hassan
82 A.3d 86
Me.2013Background
- Victim was assaulted at an apartment after midnight, sustaining a deep finger cut and other injuries; she escaped around dawn, called 911, and identified her attacker at the station from a photographic array as Samadi M. Hassan.
- Police arrived at the apartment, established a perimeter, suspected a firearm, and after several hours conducted negotiations; Hassan (who was known to some officers) eventually exited and was arrested; police recovered a red shirt with stains, headscarf, white T-shirts, and knives.
- Hassan was indicted on aggravated assault, criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, criminal restraint, and violation of a condition of release; he was tried before a jury and convicted.
- Pretrial, Hassan moved in limine to exclude evidence about (1) the events of the multi-hour police “standoff” and (2) testimony that the photo array typically contained arrest photographs; the court denied the motion.
- At trial officers testified about the standoff and the photographic-array procedures; the victim identified Hassan; defense focused on attacking the victim’s credibility; prosecutor in closing said the victim’s testimony was "entirely credible given what she had gone through."
- Hassan appealed, arguing (A) admission of standoff evidence was irrelevant/prejudicial, (B) testimony about photo-array sources implied arrest history in violation of Rule 404(b), and (C) prosecutor improperly vouched for the victim in closing; the court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of police "standoff" evidence | Hassan: evidence irrelevant and, if relevant, unfairly prejudicial under M.R. Evid. 403 | State: testimony probative of consciousness of guilt and relevant; details not inflammatory | Court: evidence relevant to consciousness of guilt; trial court within discretion; no obvious error because Hassan largely failed to object contemporaneously; admission affirmed |
| Testimony about photo-array compilation | Hassan: officer's testimony that arrays "typically" include arrest photos implied prior arrests (impermissible character evidence under M.R. Evid. 404(b)) | State: testimony about procedures explained reliability; officer did not say Hassan's photo was a mug shot and array/photo were not admitted into evidence | Court: no 404(b) error; testimony admissible to explain process and not used to prove character; affirmed |
| Prosecutorial vouching in closing argument | Hassan: prosecutor improperly vouched for victim's credibility, violating professional conduct and denying fair trial | State: prosecutor’s comment was an argument grounded in the evidence and an appeal to jurors’ common sense | Court: statement viewed in context was permissible argument based on evidence (not improper vouching); no obvious error |
| Cumulative effect of errors (dissent) | Hassan (dissent): combined prejudicial standoff details, photo-array implication, and prosecutor statements deprived him of a fair trial | State (majority): individually and cumulatively no manifest injustice given record and standards of review | Held: Majority affirmed convictions; dissent would vacate and remand, applying cumulative-error doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to the State and guidance on preserved vs. obvious error)
- State v. Hayes, 675 A.2d 106 (Me. 1996) (post‑crime flight or avoidance evidence probative of consciousness of guilt)
- State v. Wright, 662 A.2d 198 (Me. 1995) (evidence of efforts to avoid arrest relevant to guilt)
- State v. Robbins, 666 A.2d 85 (Me. 1995) (use of mug shot in a lineup can imply prior arrests and risk impermissible character inference)
- State v. Pierce, 474 A.2d 182 (Me. 1984) (Rule 404(b) framework: admissible only for non‑character purposes and if more probative than prejudicial)
- United States v. Perez‑Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (distinguishing permissible credibility argument from improper prosecutorial vouching)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (Rule 403 probative‑value calculation and availability of less prejudicial alternatives)
- United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2000) (Rule 403 balancing and concern about criminal‑propensity inferences)
- State v. Pabon, 28 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2011) (standard for obvious error review and manifest injustice)
- State v. Patton, 50 A.3d 544 (Me. 2012) (Rule 403 and evaluation of inflammatory vs. noninflammatory evidence)