State of Maine v. Steven E Clarke
117 A.3d 1045
Me.2015Background
- In 2013 Clarke was charged with driving to endanger; a witness to those events was subpoenaed for that case.
- Before that trial, Clarke visited the witness at his workplace and told him he could go to jail and lose his license if convicted.
- Clarke suggested the witness could “miss [his] court date” and said the witness “should be quiet and not say anything, [he] didn’t know anything.”
- The witness reported Clarke’s comments to the District Attorney; Clarke was later indicted for tampering with a witness (17-A M.R.S. § 454(1)(A)(2)) and for violating a condition of release (15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A)).
- After a jury trial Clarke was convicted of witness tampering; the court also found he violated a condition of release based on the tampering conviction and sentenced him to concurrent terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for tampering with a witness | Evidence (Clarke’s statements to the witness and stipulation that a charge was pending) proved attempt to induce withholding testimony | Clarke argued the evidence was insufficient; no explicit threats and witness did not feel threatened; challenged witness credibility | Affirmed — jury could reasonably infer intent to induce the witness to withhold testimony; conviction supported beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of the indictment to inform Clarke of the tampering charge | State: indictment was adequate (implicit) | Clarke argued indictment failed to adequately inform him of the charge | Not addressed on appeal — issue waived because Clarke did not challenge indictment or seek a bill of particulars below |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wyman, 107 A.3d 1134 (Me. 2015) (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency review)
- State v. Perkins, 107 A.3d 636 (Me. 2014) (intent to induce non‑testimony may be inferred from statements and circumstances)
- State v. Seymour, 461 A.2d 1060 (Me. 1983) (jury may infer requisite intent to induce false testimony from defendant’s statements)
- State v. Reardon, 486 A.2d 112 (Me. 1984) (credibility challenges do not negate sufficiency where evidence permits reasonable inference)
- State v. Shea, 588 A.2d 1195 (Me. 1991) (procedural rule that defects in indictments must be raised before trial)