State v. Perry, 159 A.3d 840

Background

Defendant Lee Perry and the victim were intimate partners living together; a December 5–6, 2014 altercation led to multiple assaults on the victim (shoving causing broken wrist; strangulation causing incontinence and other symptoms; head trauma; knife wound to hand).
Police responded after the victim called; an officer awakened Perry in his bedroom, asked questions (Perry admitted arguing and drinking but denied harming her) without giving Miranda warnings, left, then later arrested him.
State indicted Perry on seven counts including three aggravated-assault counts based on distinct theories (injury from shove; strangulation manifesting extreme indifference; assault with a dangerous weapon) and multiple domestic-violence offenses.
Perry moved to suppress his pre-arrest statements as custodial; the trial court denied the motion. Trial proceeded, including a strangulation expert’s testimony about definitions, physiology, and symptoms (not case-specific opinion).
Jury convicted on all counts; court imposed concurrent and consecutive sentences (notably consecutive terms for the extreme-indifference aggravated assault and the dangerous-weapon aggravated assault). Perry appealed suppression denial, expert-admission ruling, and consecutive sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perry was "in custody" such that his pre-arrest statements required Miranda warnings	State: statements admissible because Perry was not in custody when questioned	Perry: he was effectively in custody (awakened and questioned in bedroom) and should have been Mirandized	Court: Not custodial—totality of circumstances (single officer, familiar surroundings, no restraint, brief questioning, no communicated intent to arrest) supports admission
Admissibility of expert testimony on "strangulation"	State: expert helps jury understand technical meaning and physiological symptoms distinct from lay notion of "choking"	Perry: determination of "strangulation" is within juror common knowledge; expert unduly assisted jury on statutory element	Court: No abuse of discretion—expert testimony assisted understanding and identifying statutory strangulation without offering case-specific opinion
Whether consecutive sentences for two aggravated-assault convictions were permissible	State: consecutive sentences justified because offenses were separate episodes and conduct was particularly serious	Perry: offenses arose from a single episode so consecutive sentences were improper	Court: Consecutive sentences proper—evidence of discrete episodes (strangulation then later knife assault) and overall seriousness justified consecutive terms under statutory standards
(Procedural) Sufficiency of charging separate aggravated-assault counts for distinct theories	State: separate statutory provisions support separate counts for separate acts/instruments	Perry: overlapping conduct should not yield multiple severe punishments without statutory basis	Court: Charging distinct statutory theories tied to discrete acts was permissible; sentencing review upheld court’s exercise of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hurd, 8 A.3d 651 (Me. 2010) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Cote, 118 A.3d 805 (Me. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Dion, 928 A.2d 746 (Me. 2007) (custody analysis for Miranda with focus on familiar surroundings and lack of restraint)
State v. Holloway, 760 A.2d 223 (Me. 2000) (Miranda custody objective test and restraints on freedom of movement)
State v. Michaud, 724 A.2d 1222 (Me. 1998) (factors for custody determination)
State v. King, 136 A.3d 366 (Me. 2016) (inadmissibility rule for uncounseled custodial interrogation)
State v. Mooney, 43 A.3d 972 (Me. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings and M.R. Evid. 702 use of expert testimony)
State v. Downs, 962 A.2d 950 (Me. 2009) (standard and statutory framework for consecutive sentences)
State v. Bunker, 436 A.2d 413 (Me. 1981) (consecutive sentencing abuse where one offense facilitated another)

Judgment and sentences affirmed.