208 A.3d 774
Me.2019Background
- Defendant Terrence Townes was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault (Class A) and violating a condition of release; sentenced to 25 years, with all but 12 years suspended, plus probation.
- The incident: Townes assaulted the manager of his residential complex, struck her with a fire extinguisher, and the manager suffered permanent blindness in one eye; Townes resisted arrest and made inculpatory statements.
- Pretrial: Townes moved for bills of particulars and filed discovery-sanctions motions after the State failed to produce medical-first-responder records and other materials; the State produced some records days before trial.
- Trial-court sanctions: the court dismissed Count 3 as a sanction, excluded certain medical-first-responder evidence and testimony (including an officer who was allegedly kicked), and barred a witness who disclosed a vision impairment from testifying; some other counts resulted in mistrial, acquittal, or judgment of acquittal.
- Jury-selection issues: Townes moved for a new venire and challenged the venire as not representing a fair cross-section of the community (he is African-American), and objected when the court identified defense attorneys as "from Portland." The trial court denied relief; Townes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Townes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of sanctions for State's discovery violations | State: trial court's sanctions were appropriate and within discretion | Townes: sanctions were insufficient; violations prejudiced his defense and warranted greater relief (e.g., dismissal of more counts or new trial) | Court: affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; dismissal of Count 3 and exclusions cured prejudice and preserved a fair trial |
| Jury prejudice from court identifying defense attorneys as "from Portland" | State: identifying attorneys is routine voir dire practice to reveal known relationships | Townes: designation created geographic bias against him as an outsider defense | Court: not prejudicial; disclosure is routine and permissible |
| Fair-cross-section challenge to venire (Sixth Amendment) | State: venire process complied with constitutional requirements; no systematic exclusion shown | Townes: African-Americans underrepresented on venire; prima facie violation under Duren requires relief | Court: Townes failed to show prima facie case—no sufficient absolute disparity or evidence of systematic exclusion; motion denied |
| Motion for new venire/change of venue | State: new venire would be drawn from same community with same demographics | Townes: alternate venire or change of venue needed to obtain representative jury | Court: denied—alternate venire would not alter low percentage of African-Americans in community; withdrawal of venue motion noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (establishes three-part test for fair-cross-section prima facie showing)
- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (jury must be drawn from a fair cross section of the community)
- State v. Holland, 976 A.2d 227 (Me. 2009) (applied absolute-disparity approach; rejected small disparity as insufficient to show underrepresentation)
- State v. Burton, 198 A.3d 195 (Me. 2018) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to the State)