State v. Dolloff
2012 ME 130
| Me. | 2012Background
- Jeffrey Dolloff was severely assaulted in their Standish home in the early morning hours of April 12, 2009, using a softball bat found at the scene; Linda Dolloff, his estranged wife living in the home, was the focus of the investigation.
- Jeffrey survived but suffered life-threatening injuries and has no memory of the events; Linda contends she and Jeffrey were victims of a home invasion.
- Jeffrey and Linda had recently agreed to separate and had a plan involving Linda living in an apartment attached to the home for a year; Jeffrey anticipated bringing a girlfriend home.
- The crime scene yielded the bat used in the assault, a gun believed to be used to shoot Linda, and DNA evidence including Linda’s DNA on the bat but not on the gun’s trigger.
- Linda was indicted for attempted murder, elevated aggravated assault, and false public alarm or report after a 15-day jury trial; she was convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent prison terms.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Linda’s convictions, addressing evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial conduct in detail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct review standard | Linda argues misconduct compromised fair trial. | State contends curative instructions mitigated prejudice. | Misconduct reviewed for harmless/obvious error; no reversible impact shown. |
| Admission of the Corinthians documents | Linda contends unsanctioned admission of undated documents from her computer. | State authenticated the documents and their probative value outweighed prejudice. | Admissible; authentication and relevance supported. |
| Testimony about Linda's relationship with Jeffrey’s daughters | Prior relational evidence unfairly prejudicial. | Contextual testimony clarifies meaning; not prejudicial under 403. | Properly admitted; not reversible error. |
| Expert footprint opinion and discovery issues | Disputed whether opinion was in the expert report and discovery violation occurred. | Linda had the report; no prejudice from the opinion. | No abuse of discretion; harmless error not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haag, 48 A.3d 207 (Me. 2012) (standards for evaluating evidentiary relevance and discovery issues in criminal trials)
- State v. Pabon, 28 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2011) (harmless vs. obvious error in prosecutorial misconduct review)
- State v. Moontri, 649 A.2d 315 (Me. 1994) (contextual analysis of prosecutorial comments)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (prosecutorial misconduct and invited response considerations)