State v. Burton, 198 A.3d 195

Background

In June 2015 Robert Burton entered his former girlfriend’s home, and shot and killed her; he fled and was arrested 68 days later after surrendering. He was tried on murder and, separately, a firearms charge adjudicated by the court.
Burton moved to use a written juror questionnaire proposing 21 questions with answer choices "yes," "no," and "not sure," but the court excluded six specific questions and declined to include "not sure." The written questionnaire nonetheless explained presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and self-defense; individual follow-up voir dire occurred and no seated juror was struck for cause.
The State sought to impeach Burton with ten 2003 convictions; by agreement and court rulings several were excluded and the court admitted evidence of two burglary convictions and two theft convictions under M.R. Evid. 609 if Burton testified.
Burton testified and elicited the allowed conviction evidence himself; the State did not cross-examine him about those convictions or emphasize them in closing.
The jury convicted Burton of murder; the court found him guilty of the firearms offense and imposed concurrent sentences. Burton appealed, arguing errors in voir dire (excluded questions and answer choices) and in admitting two burglary convictions for impeachment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burton)	Defendant's Argument (State/Court)	Held
Whether court abused discretion by excluding six proposed juror questions from written questionnaire	Questions were tailored to detect bias on presumption of innocence, propensity, and self-defense and their omission prevented probing juror bias	Questionnaire and follow-up individual voir dire already covered same concepts adequately; court consulted parties before ruling	No abuse of discretion; exclusion proper because topics were sufficiently covered
Whether court erred by not including a "not sure" answer choice on written questionnaire	"Not sure" would better capture uncertainty and reveal bias	"Yes"/"No" responses plus individualized follow-up were sufficient to uncover bias; court has discretion over form of voir dire	No abuse of discretion; binary answers and follow-up were adequate
Whether two prior burglary convictions were admissible under M.R. Evid. 609 to impeach defendant’s credibility	Similarity of prior burglaries to charged conduct risked misuse as propensity evidence; therefore convictions should be excluded	Convictions were crimes involving dishonesty, within temporal limits, relevant to credibility of lone critical witness; court limited number admitted and issued limiting instruction and barred detailed exposition of burglary elements	No abuse of discretion; admission of two burglary convictions was permissible under Rule 609 with limits and instruction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fortune, 34 A.3d 1115 (Me. 2011) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. Roby, 171 A.3d 1157 (Me. 2017) (trial court has discretion over voir dire form and scope)
State v. Lowry, 819 A.2d 331 (Me. 2003) (purpose of voir dire is to detect juror bias; need for individualized follow-up when indicated)
State v. Collin, 741 A.2d 1074 (Me. 1999) (court not required to conduct voir dire exactly as requested)
State v. Gray, 755 A.2d 540 (Me. 2000) (standard of review and preservation for Rule 609 admission of prior convictions)
State v. Hanscome, 459 A.2d 569 (Me. 1983) (factors for assessing probative value vs. prejudice of prior convictions)
State v. Braley, 834 A.2d 140 (Me. 2003) (similarity of prior convictions increases risk of misuse)
State v. Wright, 662 A.2d 198 (Me. 1995) (similarity to charged crime raises risk jury will treat prior as propensity evidence)
State v. Chubbuck, 406 A.2d 282 (Me. 1979) (prior convictions for same/similar crimes not per se inadmissible under Rule 609)
State v. Ardolino, 697 A.2d 73 (Me. 1997) (assumption that juries heed limiting instructions)
State v. Hall, 172 A.3d 467 (Me. 2017) (limiting instruction appropriate to mitigate prejudice)
State v. Chase, 490 A.2d 208 (Me. 1985) (prohibiting exposition of prior conviction details to avoid undue prejudice)
State v. Roy, 385 A.2d 795 (Me. 1978) (risk of prejudice when details of prior conviction exposed)
State v. Almurshidy, 732 A.2d 280 (Me. 1999) (burglary and theft involve dishonesty for Rule 609 purposes)
State v. Lovely, 451 A.2d 900 (Me. 1982) (court should inquire reason for a requested voir dire question before refusing it)

Judgment affirmed.