State of Maine v. Wai Chan, 236 A.3d 471

On Sept. 3, 2017, Wai Chan entered former roommates’ locked home using a hidden key, took a laptop, cash and other items; value exceeded $1,000. Chan was later charged with burglary and theft.
A nearby convenience store had day-long surveillance; a store employee reviewed footage at police direction and produced two short clips (around 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.) on a data device; the rest of the day’s footage was overwritten before preservation.
Chan moved to suppress the preserved clips, arguing the State’s failure to preserve the full recording violated due process; the trial court denied the motion after a suppression hearing.
At trial, the court instructed the jury that attorney arguments are not evidence and that the defendant bears no burden of proof; Chan did not object to the State’s closing but later claimed some prosecutor remarks shifted the burden to him.
A jury convicted Chan of burglary (Class B) and theft (Class C); the trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms and restitution. Chan appealed, challenging the suppression ruling and closing-argument statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admission of preserved excerpts where remainder of surveillance was lost	The State’s failure to preserve the full surveillance footage violated due process because the unpreserved portions were potentially exculpatory	The State relied on employee review and produced relevant clips; no apparent exculpatory value and no bad faith in preservation failure	Court affirmed denial of suppression: footage was not apparently exculpatory and State did not act in bad faith; Trombetta/Youngblood framework applied
Prosecutorial remarks in closing argued to shift burden to defendant	Prosecutor’s statements implied Chan had to produce evidence for his alternative theories, amounting to misconduct that merits a new trial	Statements targeted plausibility of Chan’s theories and the evidence (or lack thereof); trial court’s instructions cured any potential misimpression	No obvious error: most statements focused on evidence; one borderline remark did not require reversal given clear jury instructions that defendant had no burden

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (establishes apparent-exculpatory-value test for lost evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (bad-faith requirement when exculpatory value was not apparent)
State v. Cote, 118 A.3d 805 (Me. 2015) (adopts Trombetta/Youngblood bifurcated analysis under Maine law)
State v. Hassan, 179 A.3d 898 (Me. 2018) (State not required to search for evidence it does not know exists)
State v. Cruthirds, 96 A.3d 80 (Me. 2014) (bad-faith inquiry factual and fact-specific)
State v. St. Louis, 951 A.2d 80 (Me. 2008) (no bad faith despite serious oversight in preservation)
State v. Diana, 89 A.3d 132 (Me. 2014) (appellate standard: uphold suppression denial if reasonable view supports it)
State v. Cheney, 55 A.3d 473 (Me. 2012) (prosecutor may attack plausibility of defense but must not shift burden)
United States v. Glover, 558 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (permissible commentary must target evidence, not defendant’s failure to produce it)