State v. Holland, 2012 ME 2

Background

Holland was convicted by jury of two counts of intentional or knowing murder and sentenced to two concurrent life terms.
The shootings occurred in Biddeford, Maine, June 30, 2009, involving brothers Derek and Gage Greene; Holland was armed with a Glock and acted after being confronted face-to-face.
Prior to the shooting, Holland had a history with the older brother including an assault and bail conditions restricting contact; Holland was observed later pacing with a perceived weapon.
Police recovered shell casings, a Glock magazine, a Glock on the roof, and a 2002 Maine Criminal Code book opened to the culpable states of mind page.
Holland argued self-defense; the State argued Holland acted with premeditation and did not act in self-defense. An eight-day trial occurred in 2010, defense rested, and Holland did not testify.
The court later addressed evidentiary rulings, identity issues when the State reopened its case, and the sentencing framework under 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of victim character evidence	Holland argues evidence of victims' violence known to Holland should be admitted under 404(a)(2).	Holland contends 404(b) should bar unknown-to-Holland violent-reputation evidence.	Evidence of known-to-Holland violent reputation admissible; unknown reputations excluded.
Admission of the Maine Criminal Code book	Book was probative of state of mind and should be admitted.	Book is prejudicial under 403 and should be excluded.	Admission was proper; viewing arrangement did not prejudice the jury.
Sufficiency of evidence to disprove self-defense	State bears burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.	Self-defense was properly supported by the evidence.	Sufficient evidence to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reopening the State's case for in-court identification	Reopening was necessary to identify Holland; in-court ID supported the verdict.	Reopening could prejudice Holland; identification should stand on existing record.	Reopening allowed; identification supported by other evidence and witnesses' familiarity.
Sentencing analysis under 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C	Court properly placed crimes among most serious category and weighed factors appropriately; no mandated detailed spectrum.	Court failed to consider mitigating factors and to compare with similar crimes.	Basic sentence life; no abuse of discretion in maximum; aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Taylor, 2011 ME 111, 32 A.3d 440 (Me. 2011) (evidentiary and sufficiency considerations in review)
State v. Stanislaw, 2011 ME 67, 21 A.3d 91 (Me. 2011) (sentencing and aggravating factors framework)
State v. Carr, 1998 ME 237, 719 A.2d 531 (Me. 1998) (basic-sentence framing for murder cases)
State v. Shortsleeves, 580 A.2d 145 (Me. 1990) (aggravating factors for life sentence)
State v. Fortune, 2011 ME 125, 34 A.3d 1115 (Me. 2011) (sentencing factors and demarcation of seriousness)
State v. Hutchinson, 2009 ME 44, 969 A.2d 923 (Me. 2009) (self-defense and sentencing considerations)
State v. Schofield, 2006 ME 101, 904 A.2d 409 (Me. 2006) (scope of basic sentence for murder cases)
State v. Waterman, 2010 ME 45, 995 A.2d 243 (Me. 2010) (de novo review for basic sentence; aggravation vs mitigation)
State v. Cook, 2011 ME 94, 26 A.3d 834 (Me. 2011) (sentencing factor weighting framework)
State v. White, 460 A.2d 1017 (Me. 1983) (mistrial and identification considerations in trial)
State v. Guptill, 481 A.2d 772 (Me. 1984) (in-court identification and evidence sufficiency)
State v. Jackson, 1997 ME 174, 697 A.2d 1328 (Me. 1997) (identity evidence when state cases reopen)
State v. Kalex, 2002 ME 26, 789 A.2d 1286 (Me. 2002) (civil-trial statements and relevancy to state of mind)
State v. Lagasse, 410 A.2d 537 (Me. 1980) (evidence relevance and weighing prejudicial impact)
State v. Leone, 581 A.2d 394 (Me. 1990) (limits of 404 evidence and prejudice concerns)
State v. Rickett, 2009 ME 22, 967 A.2d 671 (Me. 2009) (relevance of prior acts and context in self-defense)