162 A.3d 818
Me.2017Background
- Victim and Jesse Marquis were in an on‑again/off‑again relationship; on May 30, 2014 the victim attempted to end it and retrieved her car from a camp where Marquis had been present. Marquis sent multiple text messages that evening and night.
- Early May 31, 2014, friends in the house awoke to Marquis armed with a knife and later a rifle; the victim was found dead from a contact gunshot wound and multiple stab wounds.
- Forensic evidence tied a spent cartridge and a bullet fragment to Marquis’s rifle, blood on a bedroom knife to the victim, and blood from Marquis in an open rifle case and a boot print in the bedroom to Marquis. Marquis was arrested after a bloodhound track; he had cuts on his hand and a rifle was nearby.
- Marquis was indicted for intentional or knowing murder with use of a firearm; he pled not guilty and proceeded to jury trial.
- At trial the court admitted (1) text messages found on the victim’s phone showing communications from Marquis the night before, and (2) three crime‑scene color photographs showing the victim and blood evidence; the court also charged the jury on self‑defense and imperfect self‑defense.
- The jury convicted Marquis of murder; he appealed, arguing the court erred in admitting the texts and photographs and in giving a confusing/legally flawed self‑defense instruction. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marquis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of text messages (relevance) | Texts <12 hours before killing are not temporally relevant to intent/knowledge for murder | Texts show Marquis’s state of mind that he was distraught/upset that evening, making intent/knowledge more probable | Court: Texts relevant under M.R. Evid. 401; admissible as circumstantial evidence of state of mind |
| Foundation for text messages (authentication) | Insufficient Rule 901 foundation to show Marquis sent them | Phone belonged to victim; messages labeled "Jesse M"; corroborating witness recall and event correspondence justify jury finding of authorship | Court: Satisfied Rule 901 threshold; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Jury instruction on self‑defense/imperfect self‑defense | Instruction was convoluted, legally flawed, and could let jury find guilt without considering self‑defense (invokes Baker) | Instructions, read as a whole, correctly explained burden (State must disprove self‑defense beyond reasonable doubt) and told jury to acquit if State failed to do so | Court: Reviewed for obvious error; instructions, viewed as whole, were internally consistent and not obviously erroneous (distinguished from Baker) |
| Admission of crime‑scene photographs (Rule 403) | Photographs were highly inflammatory/gruesome and prejudicial, outweighing probative value | Photos accurately depicted scene and evidence (body, blood spatter, rifle case); probative value relevant to central issues and cumulative of medical testimony | Court: Photos were accurate, relevant, not unduly prejudicial; admission not an abuse of discretion or obvious error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Weaver, 130 A.3d 972 (Me. 2016) (review of jury instructions as a whole and obvious‑error standard)
- State v. Gurney, 36 A.3d 893 (Me. 2012) (standards for reviewing relevance and foundation challenges)
- State v. Baker, 114 A.3d 214 (Me. 2015) (identified structural flaws in self‑defense jury instructions)
- State v. Hanscom, 152 A.3d 632 (Me. 2016) (instruction review—correctness and fairness)
- State v. Allen, 892 A.2d 456 (Me. 2006) (three‑part test for photographic evidence admissibility under relevance and Rule 403)
- State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58 (Me. 1981) (photographs can be admissible despite gruesomeness when probative value is substantial)