240 A.3d 66
Me.2020Background
- Victim and Stephen Treadway lived together with infant twins; on Oct. 24 and Oct. 27, 2018 Treadway put his hand around the victim’s neck, causing breathing difficulty, vision impairment, neck/throat pain, and near-unconsciousness; the victim was holding an infant during both incidents.
- During the Oct. 27 incident Treadway made more severe verbal threats and threw the victim into a closet; a protection order was in effect.
- From jail Treadway sent letters intended to convince the victim not to testify.
- Treadway was charged on multiple counts, waived a jury, and a forensic nurse/educator testified as an expert about strangulation physiology and external signs.
- The court found Treadway guilty on six counts (acquitting one), then imposed consecutive prison terms for the Oct. 24 and Oct. 27 assaults; the court also cited his extensive criminal history as an aggravating factor.
- Treadway appealed, challenging (1) admission of the expert strangulation testimony, (2) imposition of consecutive sentences, and (3) consideration of his criminal history at sentencing despite a prior conviction having enhanced one offense’s classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on strangulation | Expert testimony about physiological effects and signs of strangulation is relevant and helpful to determine whether conduct met statutory definition | Expert testimony was confusing, blurred medical vs legal definitions, was unhelpful because expert did not examine the victim and lacked qualification about prevalence of signs | Admitted. Court did not abuse discretion or commit obvious error; expert testimony on physiological effects of strangulation assists the trier of fact (following State v. Perry). |
| Consecutive sentences for Oct. 24 and Oct. 27 assaults | Consecutive sentences permissible because the convictions arose from different criminal episodes under 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2)(A) | The two assaults were part of the same criminal episode and sentences should run concurrently; any reliance on subsection (2)(D) would be improper | Affirmed. Record supports finding of separate criminal episodes (different days, locations, force, threats); imposition of consecutive sentences was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Use of criminal history at sentencing when a prior conviction enhanced offense classification | Court may consider criminal history as an aggravating sentencing factor distinct from using a prior conviction as an element that elevates offense class | A prior conviction used to enhance the offense classification should not also be used as an aggravating factor at sentencing (argues ambiguous overlap; urges rule of lenity) | Affirmed. Statutes are not ambiguous; a prior conviction can be both an element that alters classification and part of the offender’s criminal history considered at sentencing because they serve different functions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 159 A.3d 840 (Me. 2017) (expert testimony about physiological effects and symptoms of strangulation can assist the trier of fact)
- Bergin v. Bergin, 214 A.3d 1071 (Me. 2019) (expert-testimony admissibility standards and requirements under M.R. Evid. 702)
- State v. Ilsley, 604 A.2d 17 (Me. 1992) (standard of review and analysis for sentencing court findings supporting consecutive sentences)
- State v. Corliss, 706 A.2d 593 (Me. 1998) (a prior conviction used to enhance classification is an essential element of the offense)
- State v. Downs, 962 A.2d 950 (Me. 2009) (sentencing courts must individualize sentences and may consider criminal history among aggravating/mitigating factors)
- State v. Lord, 208 A.3d 781 (Me. 2019) (courts may consider probation-violation facts and significant criminal history in distinct ways during sentencing)