State of Maine v. Shawna Gatto, 232 A.3d 228

Victim: a four-year-old granddaughter cared for full-time by Shawna Gatto; Gatto was primary caregiver and lived with her fiancé.
On Dec. 8, 2017 the child was found naked and unresponsive in a tub; transported to hospital and pronounced dead.
Autopsy (Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Flomenbaum): multiple head/face injuries, subscalp hemorrhage, brain swelling from oxygen deprivation, and catastrophic intra‑abdominal injuries (torn intestines, lacerated pancreas, ~1/3 of blood in abdominal cavity) consistent with strong squeezing force; pathologists agreed cause/manner but disputed timing.
Crime‑scene evidence and history showed chronic abuse: blood spatter, attempts to clean, dent in wall with victim’s hair and blood, soaked pajamas, many prior bruises; Gatto repeatedly told police the child was accident‑prone and denied causing injuries.
Procedural posture: Indicted for depraved‑indifference murder (17‑A M.R.S. § 201(1)(B)); jury waiver; bench trial; court found Gatto guilty and sentenced her to 50 years; Gatto appealed asserting (1) insufficient evidence and (2) erroneous limitation of cross‑examination of the Chief Medical Examiner about his prior removal from a Massachusetts office.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gatto)	Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence proved depraved‑indifference murder absent direct proof Gatto inflicted fatal injury	Evidence—including chronic abuse, forensic mechanism of abdominal injury, scene evidence, Gatto’s implausible statements, and credibility findings—supported that Gatto caused death and acted with depraved indifference	No direct evidence tying Gatto to the fatal act; conviction not supportable without direct proof	Affirmed: circumstantial and forensic evidence and reasonable inferences satisfied elements beyond a reasonable doubt (no direct proof required).
Limitation of cross‑examination: whether trial court abused discretion by precluding questioning of Dr. Flomenbaum about his prior removal	Permissible to exclude because prior removal had minimal probative value, risked collateral mini‑trial, and did not constitute specific instances of untruthful conduct under Rule 608(b); prior removal is speculative proof of bias	Evidence of removal was probative of truthfulness, expert qualification, and bias and thus should have been allowed	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion proper under Rule 608(b) and for bias given minimal, speculative probative value and risk of collateral proceedings.

State v. Cummings, 166 A.3d 996 (Me. 2017) (circumstantial and DNA evidence may suffice to uphold a murder conviction).
State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58 (Me. 1981) (defines depraved‑indifference standard and requirement of conduct creating a very high risk of death).
State v. Saenz, 150 A.3d 331 (Me. 2016) (upholding depraved‑indifference conviction where defendant’s account conflicted with abuse evidence).
State v. Haji‑Hassan, 182 A.3d 145 (Me. 2018) (discussing admissibility of evidence about Dr. Flomenbaum’s prior removal; case‑by‑case inquiry).
State v. Coleman, 181 A.3d 689 (Me. 2018) (consideration of prior credibility rulings and limits on impeachment of Dr. Flomenbaum).
State v. Doughty, 399 A.2d 1319 (Me. 1979) (broad rule permitting proof of witness bias).
State v. Lagasse, 410 A.2d 537 (Me. 1979) (interpretation of depraved‑indifference statute concerning mental state).
State v. Fahnley, 119 A.3d 727 (Me. 2015) (obvious‑error review for unpreserved claims).