State of Maine v. Yvonne Michaud, 2017 ME 170

On Aug. 6, 2015, Yvonne Michaud pulled into oncoming traffic on Route 302 in Westbrook attempting to pass cars, could not reenter her lane, and collided head-on with a Ford Focus; both occupants suffered serious injuries.
Michaud was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault (Class B) and two counts of aggravated driving to endanger (Class C); she pleaded not guilty and elected to testify.
Before trial Michaud offered to stipulate that the victims suffered serious bodily injuries; the State initially refused and sought to admit evidence of the injuries; the court excluded some inflammatory/duplicative photos but admitted other injury evidence.
During trial the State presented crash-reconstruction and forensic-mapping testimony and later agreed to Michaud’s stipulated acceptance of the serious-injury element, foregoing its planned medical witnesses.
In rebuttal closing the prosecutor argued, among other things, that “science doesn’t lie” in referencing the reconstruction evidence; Michaud did not object at trial and was convicted on all counts.
Michaud moved for a new trial alleging (1) improper admission of injury evidence despite her stipulation and (2) prosecutorial misconduct; the trial court denied the motion. Michaud appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting evidence of victims’ injuries despite Michaud’s pretrial stipulation	State: not obligated to accept defendant’s stipulation; may present full case subject to Rule 403	Michaud: stipulation made injury evidence cumulative and prejudicial; court should have excluded injury detail/photos	Court: State may refuse stipulation; trial court properly balanced probative value vs. unfair prejudice and did not abuse discretion
Whether prosecutor’s ‘‘science doesn’t lie’’ remark in rebuttal required new trial for prosecutorial misconduct	State: remark highlighted discrepancies and scientific evidence; within proper argument about credibility	Michaud: comment was improper vouching and prejudicial; warrants new trial	Court: comment was isolated, not vouching for a witness, not objected to at trial, and did not constitute plain error affecting substantial rights; no new trial

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (prosecutor not required to accept defendant’s stipulation; balancing probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
State v. Conner, 434 A.2d 509 (Me. 1981) (evidence that is merely cumulative or of minimal significance warrants close scrutiny under Rule 403)
State v. Daluz, 143 A.3d 800 (Me. 2016) (standard for reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims and obvious error analysis)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (prosecutor must avoid vouching and comments that invite jury to decide based on impermissible bases)
State v. Renfro, 157 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017) (discussion of what constitutes unfair prejudice under Rule 403)