State of Maine v. Troy D. Hastey, 196 A.3d 432

Background

In 1990 Hastey was indicted for manslaughter (for reckless/criminally negligent operation of a motor vehicle) and an OUI; he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 1991 and the OUI was dismissed.
In 2015 Hastey was arrested for OUI; the State charged aggravated OUI (Class B) under 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(D)(2), alleging a prior criminal homicide conviction that “involved or resulted from” operation while under the influence.
Hastey moved in limine to exclude any extrinsic evidence about his intoxication at the time of the 1990 offense, arguing the State’s proof must be limited to the prior indictment and judgment and that extrinsic proof would violate double jeopardy and be unfair.
The trial court granted the motion, applying the federal “categorical approach” and limiting the State’s proof to the face of the 1990 indictment and 1991 judgment and commitment; the State appealed.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that § 2411(1-A)(D)(2) contains two elements—(1) a prior criminal homicide conviction and (2) that the conviction involved or resulted from operation while under the influence—and that the second is a circumstance-specific element permitting extrinsic evidence in the present prosecution.
The court vacated the in limine order and remanded for denial of the motion, while acknowledging protections (bifurcation, evidentiary rules, burden of proof) against unfair prejudice from stale evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State may introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that a prior criminal homicide conviction "involved or resulted from" operation while under the influence	State: The statutory phrase creates a distinct, circumstance-specific enhancement element; extrinsic evidence may be used to prove it	Hastey: Proof must be limited to the prior conviction record (categorical approach); extrinsic evidence would effectively reprosecute the old case and raise double jeopardy/fairness problems	Held: The enhancement has two elements; the "involving or resulting from" phrase is a factual element requiring a present inquiry and may be proved with extrinsic evidence
Whether the federal "categorical approach" governs interpretation of the state enhancement provision	State: Not applicable; § 2411 is a Maine statute and its language controls	Hastey: Trial court applied the categorical approach to bar extrinsic evidence	Held: The categorical approach does not apply; Maine courts interpret § 2411 by its plain language and context
Whether allowing extrinsic proof violates double jeopardy or other protections	Hastey: Presentation of extrinsic evidence would re-litigate dismissed OUI and violate double jeopardy and fairness	State: Prosecuting a new OUI enhancement with proof of a prior conviction’s circumstances is proper; double jeopardy not implicated	Held: Double jeopardy argument waived and, in any event, not persuasive; protections (e.g., bifurcation, evidentiary rules, burden on State) mitigate unfairness
Standard and burden for proving enhancement element	State: Must prove enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt in the present prosecution	Hastey: Limiting proof to conviction record would be required	Held: State must prove the enhancement element beyond a reasonable doubt; factfinder may consider extrinsic evidence subject to rules of evidence and trial procedure

Key Cases Cited

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (explaining the categorical approach for predicate-offense enhancements)
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (circumstance-specific approach when statute refers to how an offense was committed)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (clarifying limits of categorical inquiry)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (distinguishing categorical and modified categorical approaches)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (documents permissible under modified categorical approach)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts that increase penalty must be found by jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (factfinding for sentencing elements and beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Patterson, 651 A.2d 362 (Me. 1994) (interlocutory appeal of in limine ruling not premature under certain circumstances)
State v. Brackett, 754 A.2d 337 (Me. 2000) (hesitancy to hear interlocutory appeals of in limine rulings that may change at trial)
State v. Mourino, 104 A.3d 893 (Me. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Renfro, 157 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017) (applying M.R. Evid. 403 balancing for prejudice vs. probative value)