Steven Lamarre v. State of Maine
82 A.3d 845
Me.2013Background
- Lamarre was convicted at trial of two counts of aggravated trafficking near a school and two counts of violating a release; post-conviction relief was denied and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Clark, an informant with prior convictions, identified Lamarre as the drug seller via a photo lineup in March 2009, making her credibility central.
- Attorney Bates represented Lamarre at trial and highlighted Clark’s drug use, criminal history, and motive to assist law enforcement.
- Lamarre filed a post-conviction petition alleging Bates failed to investigate three pending Clark matters and to impeach Clark on that basis.
- The post-conviction court denied relief, ruling Bates reasonably did not uncover those matters before Lamarre’s trial and that impeachment would not have altered the outcome for two matters; the first matter was considered only for potential impact on credibility.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed under the two-prong ineffective assistance standard (competence and likely effect on trial outcome).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bates’s failure to uncover Clark’s pending second and third matters constituted ineffective assistance. | Lamarre argues failure to discover impeachment material affected trial. | State contends no evidence of awareness and impeachment unlikely to change outcome. | No reversible error; findings supported; likely no effect on outcome. |
| Whether Bates’s failure to uncover Clark’s first matter (DV arrest) could have affected the outcome. | Lamarre claims potential impeachment momentum against Clark. | State argues timing and non-pending status precluded impact; unlikely to alter verdict. | Likely would not have changed the outcome; affirmed on this ground. |
| Whether the two-prong test for ineffective assistance was correctly applied. | Petitioner contends proper prong analysis supports relief. | Court properly applied prongs and deferential standard of review. | Court’s application of the two-prong test affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGowan v. State, 2006 ME 16 (Me. 2006) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Legasse v. State, 655 A.2d 328 (Me. 1995) (duty to conduct reasonable investigation for impeachment evidence)
- State v. Carey, 2013 ME 83 (Me. 2013) (contextual framework for sufficiency of impeachment and credibility considerations)
- State v. Larrivee, 481 A.2d 782 (Me. 1984) (law of the case doctrine; precludes relitigation of settled issues)