State v. Ericson
13 A.3d 777
| Me. | 2011Background
- Eric Ericson was convicted by a jury of gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and sexual abuse of a minor based on victim and mother's testimony describing a long-running 'game' involving sexual gratification for chores.
- Defense theory posited that the victim fabricated abuse to leave a tense home; foster placement was preferred, suggesting manipulation by the victim.
- Ericson sought to introduce testimony suggesting the victim preferred the foster home; dispute arose over cross-examination about the victim's alleged episode of being tied to a pole by her father.
- The court excluded the proposed Rule 608(b) evidence about the pole incident as collateral and not probative of truthfulness.
- Ericson testified and referenced inadmissible evidence; the court had to determine whether his conduct waived his right to testify, ultimately finding a waiver based on conduct.
- Plaud's deposition testimony based on the Abel Assessment was excluded as unreliable and irrelevant, leading to affirmance of the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony | Ericson contends Abel Assessment is reliable evidence supporting defense. | State argues Abel Assessment is unreliable and not admissible. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed as unreliable and irrelevant. |
| Waiver of right to testify | Ericson did not knowingly waive his right to testify. | Ericson's contumacious conduct shows waiver of the right to testify. | Court properly inferred intentional waiver based on totality of circumstances. |
| Cross-examination of the victim | Pole-incident evidence relevant to credibility or defense theory. | Evidence is probative of truthfulness or motive and admissible. | Court did not abuse discretion; the testimony was collateral and excluded under Rule 403 or 608. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tuplin, 2006 ME 83 (Me. 2006) (waiver of right to testify by conduct; bifurcated review)
- State v. Bickart, 2009 ME 7 (Me. 2009) (threshold reliability for expert testimony)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (right to fair opportunity to present defense; evidence rules)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to testify; limits under evidentiary rules)
- Nunez, 877 F.2d 1475 (10th Cir. 1989) (waiver of right to testify by contumacious conduct)
- Filler, 2010 ME 90 (Me. 2010) (motive evidence; credibility balancing under Rule 403)
- Steen, 623 A.2d 146 (Me. 1993) (prohibition on cross-examination about prior false accusations to avoid confusion)
- Almurshidy, 1999 ME 97 (Me. 1999) (prior accusations and credibility; limitations on admissibility)
- Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 83 (Me. 2008) (reliability required for expert testimony to have probative value)