153 A.3d 106
Me.2017Background
- In April 2013, Romeo Parent was murdered; Michael McNaughton stabbed and choked him while Nathan Morton and William True were present; Parent's body was disposed in a stream. True was arrested and later tried.
- True was indicted for intentional/knowing or depraved-indifference murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and hindering apprehension or prosecution; the jury convicted him of murder and hindering, acquitted him of conspiracy.
- Key witnesses for the State included Morton (a co-defendant who pleaded guilty to related charges), Eric Leighton, and Theodore Gagnon; each gave testimony that varied from earlier statements and was impeached about drug use and inconsistent accounts.
- True moved to dismiss or for a new trial alleging the State presented perjured testimony; he later withdrew that motion as part of a sentencing agreement (receiving a 25-year mandatory sentence), though the State told the court issues would be ‘‘not preserved’’ rather than that True had waived them.
- On appeal True argued the challenged witness testimony was perjured and denied him a fair trial. The court treated the claim as unpreserved error and reviewed for obvious error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (True) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the challenged trial witnesses’ statements perjured and did such perjury deprive True of a fair trial? | Morton, Leighton, and Gagnon lied at trial; their inconsistent statements show perjury that likely affected the verdict. | Inconsistencies go to credibility; no evidence the State knowingly presented false testimony; jury reasonably could assess credibility. | No plain or obvious error. True failed to prove perjury or that any false testimony probably caused conviction. |
| Did True waive review by withdrawing his post-trial motion in the sentencing agreement? | Withdrawal occurred under a plea/sentencing agreement; True contends he retained right to appeal per the court’s advisement. | The withdrawal was voluntary and ordinarily would waive the issues raised by the motion. | Court treated claim as unpreserved (possible waiver) but reviewed for obvious error because the State’s statements at sentencing suggested the claims were merely "not preserved." |
| What standard governs claims based on alleged use of false testimony when the State is not accused of knowingly presenting it? | A new trial is warranted if testimony was material and court believes but for the perjury conviction likely would not have occurred. | Same; defense bears burden to show testimony was actually perjured, not merely inconsistent. | Adopted the Wallach test: absent State knowledge, defendant must show testimony was material and but for it conviction likely would not have occurred; also must first demonstrate testimony was perjured. |
| Was the record such that a reasonable jury could rely on the witnesses despite inconsistencies? | Inconsistencies and impeaching evidence (drug use, recantations, pre/post-trial statements) made the witnesses unreliable. | Other corroborating evidence supported the verdict (physical evidence, other witness statements); credibility choices are for the jury. | The jury could rationally credit parts of witnesses’ testimony; corroborating evidence supported the verdict; no basis to vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (conviction obtained through use of false evidence known to be false violates due process)
- United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1991) (when State not shown to have known testimony was false, new trial requires testimony be material and that but for it conviction likely would not have occurred)
- United States v. Griley, 814 F.2d 967 (4th Cir. 1987) (defendant must demonstrate testimony was actually perjured, not merely inconsistent)
- United States v. Verser, 916 F.2d 1268 (7th Cir. 1990) (inconsistencies alone do not establish use of false testimony)
- State v. Tuplin, 901 A.2d 792 (Me. 2006) (waiver requires voluntary, knowing, intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- State v. McBreairty, 137 A.3d 1012 (Me. 2016) (appellate standard for obvious error review in criminal cases)
- State v. Brunette, 501 A.2d 419 (Me. 1985) (due process violated when conviction obtained through known false evidence)