State v. Michaud, 168 A.3d 802

On Aug. 6, 2015, Yvonne Michaud drove into oncoming traffic on Route 302 while attempting to pass multiple cars and collided head-on with a Ford Focus, seriously injuring its driver and passenger.
Michaud was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault (Class B) and two counts of aggravated driving to endanger (Class C); she pleaded not guilty and offered to stipulate that the victims sustained serious bodily injuries.
The State initially declined the stipulation and presented testimony and photographs of the victims’ injuries, crash reconstruction, and forensic mapping; the court excluded some duplicative/inflammatory photos but admitted other evidence of injury and crash dynamics.
During trial the State later accepted Michaud’s stipulation regarding serious bodily injury and did not call two planned doctors; Michaud testified in her defense.
In rebuttal closing the prosecutor argued, inter alia, that “science doesn’t lie,” which Michaud did not object to at trial; the jury convicted Michaud on all counts, and the court denied her postverdict motion for a new trial.
Michaud appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion admitting injury evidence despite her offered stipulation and (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument warranted a new trial; the court affirmed.

Issue	Michaud's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of victims’ injury evidence despite a defense stipulation	Evidence of injuries was cumulative and prejudicial; stipulation made injury evidence unnecessary	State not required to accept defendant’s stipulation and may present its case; injury evidence was probative of elements and crash dynamics	Court did not abuse discretion: excluded truly duplicative/inflammatory items but permissibly admitted probative injury/crash evidence
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing ("science doesn't lie")	Comment improperly vouched for evidence/witnesses and was prejudicial; warranted new trial	Comment was isolated, not vouching for a witness, and was a permissible argument about discrepancies and credibility; no objection at trial	No obvious error affecting substantial rights; statement did not require a new trial

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (discusses limits on excluding evidence when a defendant offers a stipulation)
State v. Conner, 434 A.2d 509 (Me. 1981) (Rule 403 balancing when evidence is cumulative or probative of uncontroverted facts)
State v. Daluz, 143 A.3d 800 (Me. 2016) (standard for obvious error review of unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (prosecutor must avoid vouching and impermissible appeals to bias in closing)
State v. Renfro, 157 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017) (definition of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
State v. Sexton, 159 A.3d 335 (Me. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion review of Rule 403 weighing)
State v. Skarbinski, 21 A.3d 86 (Me. 2011) (closing argument may address discrepancies to challenge credibility)
State v. Hassan, 82 A.3d 86 (Me. 2013) (prosecutor may not state personal belief about a witness’s credibility)
State v. Smith, 456 A.2d 16 (Me. 1983) (example of improper prosecutorial statements accusing defendant of lying)