State v. Brockelbank, 2011 ME 118

Brockelbank appealing after jury convicted him of aggravated criminal trespass and assault in Waterville, following a 2:30 a.m. incident involving Doucette and another party.
Facts: Brockelbank arrived during a confrontation; he and a companion kicked Doucette’s door, Brockelbank tackled Doucette and punched him while Doucette held a shotgun but did not point it at anyone.
Jury was instructed on the competing harms defense and the State’s burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sentencing was consolidated with a prior domestic assault case; Brockelbank sought counseling-history as mitigating factor; the State referenced a juvenile record to discuss temper issues, which the court allowed only for character purposes.
The court explicitly stated it would not treat the juvenile history as a prior conviction; it nevertheless admitted related information to respond to the defense’s disclosure; judgment and sentence were affirmed.
The decision discusses whether the nonpublic juvenile adjudication records may be used in adult sentencing and concludes general use is prohibited, but limited disclosure may be allowed if the defendant voluntarily raises related information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State prove the competing harms defense beyond a reasonable doubt?	Brockelbank contends the defense was not disproven.	Brockelbank argues the defense failed because imminent harm was present.	Yes; State disproved at least one element; defense rejected.
Was there sufficient evidence Brockelbank knew he lacked a license to enter Doucette’s dwelling?	Brockelbank asserts lack of knowledge of non-permitted entry.	Brockelbank contends knowledge issue insufficiently proven.	Yes; record supports knowledge element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was Brockelbank’s sentence illegally enhanced by considering nonpublic juvenile records?	Brockelbank argues 15 M.R.S. § 3308(2) barred such consideration.	State claims limited, respond to counseling-related information.	No; court properly limited consideration and allowed responsive information.

State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 2011 ME 96 (Me. 2011) (disproving competing harms defense burden remains with State)
State v. Nadeau, 2007 ME 57 (Me. 2007) (supports reviewing standard after defense is rejected by jury)
State v. Preston, 2011 ME 98 (Me. 2011) (context for light most favorable to State standard of review)
State v. Filler, 2010 ME 90 (Me. 2010) (jury credibility and weight of evidence are jury’s province)
State v. Corrieri, 654 A.2d 419 (Me. 1995) (opening the door to testimony limits later claims of error)
State v. Schmidt, 2010 ME 8 (Me. 2010) (direct appeal of sentence; illegality if clearly so on record)