State v. Ferguson, 200 A.3d 272

Background

On Nov. 27, 2015, Robert Kennedy was shot dead and Barry Jenkins was seriously wounded in an apartment in Bangor; Thomas Ferguson and Robert Hansley were implicated.
Court found Ferguson had motive (prior fight, belief Kennedy was a snitch), had obtained the Bersa .40 as payment for a drug debt, and was with Hansley before, during, and after the shooting.
Surveillance and witness testimony placed Ferguson and Hansley together earlier that night and near the scene shortly before the shooting; cell records were consistent with Ferguson being in the area.
A sawed-off shotgun wrapped in foil found in a friend’s closet bore Ferguson’s DNA; the murder pistol was wrapped similarly and stored on the same closet shelf, though Ferguson’s DNA was not on the pistol.
Ferguson lied to police after arrest and attempted to flee with Hansley; he was tried separately in a bench trial, convicted of murder and elevated aggravated assault, and sentenced (appeal challenges conviction, not sentence).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ferguson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for key factual findings	Evidence (witness IDs, surveillance, DNA, packaging, proximity, lies) supports findings beyond reasonable doubt	Findings (drug sales, entry, wrapping pistol) unsupported or speculative	Affirmed — findings supported by competent direct and circumstantial evidence; not clearly erroneous (court may rely on circumstantial proof)
Accomplice liability	Ferguson aided/Facilitated crime or at least supported Hansley (motive, presence, control of weapon, packaging, flight, false statements)	Mere presence or inconsistent evidence insufficient to establish intent to promote/facilitate	Affirmed — evidence permitted rational finding Ferguson guilty as accomplice under 17-A M.R.S. §57 standard
Alleged subornation of perjury (Jenkins’s testimony)	State knowingly presented perjured testimony that both men fired, contrary to ballistics and forensics	Jenkins’s inconsistencies are credibility matters; no proof of intentional falsehood known to State	Affirmed — defendant failed to demonstrate perjury or State knowing use of false evidence; credibility issues for fact‑finder (no Fourteenth Amendment violation)
Admissibility of in-court identifications	Identifications were reliable and not so suggestive as to taint testimony	Pretrial suggestive contacts (ambulance remark, police interview presence) tainted identifications and should be suppressed	Affirmed — court found no suggestive procedures creating substantial likelihood of misidentification; reliability and weight for trier of fact to assess
Admission of prior-bad-act and other evidence (shotgun, drug dealing, stolen gun, cell location)	Evidence relevant to motive, identity, absence of mistake, relationship; properly limited	Evidence unduly prejudicial and propensity-based	Affirmed — trial court properly ruled under M.R. Evid. 404(b) and 403; bench trial context reduced prejudice presumption not rebutted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 127 A.3d 1234 (Me. 2015) (standard for reviewing bench-trial factual findings and sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Anderson, 152 A.3d 623 (Me. 2016) (definition and standard for accomplice liability under §57)
State v. True, 153 A.3d 106 (Me. 2017) (due-process rule when State uses known false evidence; burden to prove perjury)
State v. Coleman, 181 A.3d 689 (Me. 2018) (criminal convictions may rest on circumstantial evidence)
State v. Davis, 191 A.3d 1147 (Me. 2018) (standard for reviewing admission of identification testimony)
State v. Nigro, 24 A.3d 1283 (Me. 2011) (review of factual findings on suppression motions)
State v. Pillsbury, 161 A.3d 690 (Me. 2017) (review standards for M.R. Evid. 404(b) and 403 rulings)
Steadman v. Pagels, 125 A.3d 713 (Me. 2015) (limitations on using prior acts evidence to show propensity)
MacCormick v. MacCormick, 478 A.2d 678 (Me. 1984) (presumption that trial judges decide based on legally admissible evidence; bench trial prejudice rule)