State v. Ayers

brief, however, relationship filing from which to find a direct of defendant’s Christy’s spinal injury, between Mr. cord federal constitutional issue was decided accident, incurred in the the resulting Supreme Court in the United South States problems respiratory Neville, - U.S. -, from which ulti- Dakota mately died. The death certificate indi- Supreme cated that of the cause death was “bilateral held the admission into evidence pneumonia due as a consequence of submit to a of a defendant’s refusal chest paralysis muscle due to or as a conse- test not violative blood-alcohol quence spinal of C5 cord transection.” The self- guarantee against Fifth Amendment’s medical witness called the State testified Id. 923. incrimination. pneumonia commonly associated We need not examine this case with the of spinal injury kind sustained vio question 1312(8) whether section Mr. Christy. explained persons He protections. lates Maine constitutional with chest muscle do paralysis not have re Snow’s bizarre behavior and abusive enough strength generate muscular an sponse warnings trooper’s under the cough effective sufficient to clear the accu- implied consent law were evidence of the mulation of mucus and other secretions defendant’s state of intoxication admissible lungs which accumulate in the and can re- dependence him without upon sult in infection. He opined that Mr. statutory provision. constitutes a What Christy died of pneumonia which was a person’s implied “revocation of consent” direct result muscle respiratory weakness and under what circumstances its admission resulting injuries from the sustained in evidence would be Maine violative of accident. expert Defendant’s medical guarantees questions constitutional are we agreed injuries that Mr. Christy’s “started open upon appropriate leave for decision spiral” led his death. record. We conclude that there was sufficient remaining appeal points Defendant’s evidence from which a jury reasonable require are without merit and do not discus- could beyond have found a reasonable doubt sion.

that defendant’s legal conduct was the entry must be: cause death. The would jury have been Judgments warranted in of conviction affirmed. concluding that “but for” the accident, Christy Mr. would have died concurring. All and that concurrent cause attributable to his predisposition respiratory problems

would not alone have been sufficient

produce his death.

V.

Defendant next that 29 M.R.S.A. of Maine STATE 1312(8) (1983), I, is violative of Article § section 6 of the Constitution Maine and the Fifth and Fourteenth Donald AYERS. Amendments the United States Constitu- Supreme Judicial Court Maine. tion. That provides section the “revo- person’s implied cation of a consent to sub- 18, 1983. Argued March mit to a chemical test allow by refusing to Aug. Decided taking sample specimen shall ... (sic)

be admissable in evidence on the issue person

of whether that the influ- under liquor.”

ence of intoxicating Subsequent Leadbetter, Wayne Moss

Charles K. S. Gen., (orally), Attys. Augusta, Asst. plaintiff. Goldsmith, Hilary Billings

Stern & J. (orally), Bangor, defendant. C.J., MeKUSICK, GODFREY, Before trials, jury and that defendant had NICHOLS, WATHEN, CARTER* to withdraw from the requested JJ. sought appointment case other WATHEN, Justice. hearing, counsel. At one of defendant’s Ayers appeals Defendant Donald from his as follows: explained murder, conviction for 17-A M.R.S.A. § note, always my per- The final it’s been (1983), Superi- from in resulting jury a trial that I’ve never experience sonal had appeal, or (Washington County). On don’t representing luck clients who want defendant the court erred in: very me. I find it to (1) refusing to defense counsel to get along difficult to with them in most representation, (2) failing from withdraw to cases. And this case a murder being a refer- declare a mistrial after testimonial case, I would consider the establishment confession, (3) ence to the co-defendant’s a attorney of trust between and client gun pursuant a and found admitting very important. alleged illegal confession of the co- being questioned by presiding After defendant, (4) a of the vic- admitting copy justice, he defendant stated that did not copy log tim’s will and a a firearms have confidence in his counsel and not did rule, contravention of best evidence and represented. feel being properly that he was (5) admitting prior testimony recorded explained Defendant that he had deny the defendant. We find no error and presented his earlier fact due that he had learned the date of his night Che- April On John new trial also the week before. He stated ponis was shot and beaten to death in past that for the three months J-P Cash in Presque Market Isle. The vic- get had been the name of a trying “good wife, Thibodeau, tim’s former Barbara lawyer” criminal from his fellow inmates at Ayers defendant Donald were each indicted the Maine State Prison. one charged conspiracy count of suggested possi- two names as 25,1980, and one July count of murder. On replacement jus- ble The presiding counsel. trial, a following jury both defendant and responded attorneys tice that one of these Barbara Thibodeau were convicted as other, country was out of the and that the charged. On appeal, upheld this Court both lawyer, “is not going Portland to travel convictions conspiracy but set aside the appointed Machias for case. I Ayers, victions of murder. State v. him, I guarantee haven’t talked to but can (Me.1981). A.2d 356 Ayers Donald was sub- expressed willing- it.” After defendant his retried and sequently convicted murder ness to have the court select another attor- on October 1981. The ney, justice is stated: “There granted a defense motion for new trial willing no one in this state who would be and, venue, following change a third try take this case and it next week.” jury trial resulted in the murder conviction presiding justice commented further: The now on appeal. Ayers, really problem I have a “Mr. I. effect, just what, way is a back door Ten days before scheduled commence- get a continuance in this case.” Defendant trial, ment the third both of defendant’s seeking he was not a contin- responded that application uance, counsel filed for leave with- noting and his defendant’s draw, incarceration, asserting they appoint- present had been stated: “I don’t see defendant, ed to him.” represent they any way help a continuance could already unsuccessfully represented replied: him in The presiding * Carter, J., argument participated adopted, opinion sat at oral resigned in the initial conference but before

Well, arguably, guaranteed by to counsel helped Ayers,1 it —it Mrs. is a corner Amendment indeed the Sixth pretty it’s a matter that is because —and of ordered system of our national stone out speaking obvious. I don’t think I’m Alabama, 45, 53 Powell v. liberty. or at Ayers necessary, of turn. Mr. is a impor 77 L.Ed. 158 hopes least the to make him a wit- criminal adversary tance of counsel in our Ayers. why ness Mrs. That’s recog but it is well system unquestioned, his over get with first so a criminal defendant’s absolute nized that privilege problem disposed of. And her upon does not confer him right to counsel already year trial is one after the Law right to counsel of his choice. an absolute reversal. Recognizing Court’s of the inevitable Balancing appreciation has, date, delay bulk of that been the with a of trial administration difficulties fault of the defense because of the shift protections, concern for constitutional there, it’s time to in counsel nonetheless the of an uniformly eases hold one, retry that and as a matter —it’s not “cher to the assistance accused setting I’m with the siding State be,” though fundamental Unit ished and witness, Mr. but the fact of Ayers as Fowler, 181, (5th 183 v. 605 F.2d ed States practical the matter remains that the denied, 950, 445 100 Cir.1979), cert. U.S. way try Ayers these trials is Mr. first 1599, (1980), cannot be 63 L.Ed.2d 785 Ayers. and then Mrs. orderly to obstruct the manipulated so as Ultimately, the court ruled: in the courts or to interfere procedure is, Ayers, of this Mr. that I upshot [T]he fair, efficient and effective administra your request am not convinced that See, e.g., United justice. tion of States change product is the 485, Burton, (D.C.Cir.1978), 489 584 F.2d attorneys’ of your reasoned evaluation 837, denied, 1069, 59 439 99 S.Ct. cert. I performance prior in the trials. think (1979); United v. Pou L.Ed.2d 34 States motives. underlying there are some Cer- lack, 83, Cir.), denied (1st F.2d 86 cert. 556 the two coun- tainly suggested neither 613, [of 98 S.Ct. and I represent you, is available to Procunier, (1977); 487 F.2d sel] Lofton lawyer State, know of no who is available to 269 (9th Cir.1973); 435 Thorne v. represent 556, 560, (1980); on the short-term basis you Ark. S.W.2d Connor, we here. I am not at all in- have 381 Mass. Commonwealth v. (1980); The mat- grant clined to a continuance. State N.E.2d time, Addison, 482, 485, for a pending long ter has been 197 Neb. 249 N.W.2d here, Baines, 480 (1977); whatever —whatever the situation Commonwealth v. me that nothing I’ve heard that convinces Pa. 389 A.2d you so bad that cannot the situation is not tolerate unwar A court need get competent representation from and, discre delays, if in the sound ranted with the people who are most familiar exercise of attempted the court the tion of represented you in the case and who have dilatory or otherwise sub choice is deemed past, going deny and I’m process, criminal orderly versive of will withdraw this counsel. The matter to trial go a defendant to may compel proceed July as scheduled on 12th. satisfied with his entirely even if he is not Lofton, F.2d at attorney. on this record that designated 435; Meachum, to counsel deprived Maynard was of the Cir.1976). (1st The United States Su change repre- court’s refusal to held that recently has preme sentation. Court ing had been Ayers her murder conviction Thibodeau were retrial after 1. Donald and Barbara entries reflect that she State v. following The docket See set aside. married their arrest. change opportunity to Ayers, afforded an At the date of this has been 433 A.2d at 358 n. 1. progressed. Ayers her has hearing, the case was await- counsel as Barbara Thibodeau guarantee Sixth Amendment does not Defendant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion. The remarks “meaningful an ac relationship” between could, justice if considered out cused and his Slappy, counsel. Morris v. context, expressing construed as be - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 75 L.Ed.2d inappropriate concern the effect (1983).2 In so holding, recog requested ruling upon position important nized the countervailing interests However, entire reading State. in avoiding unnecessary delay State record establishes that the trial court was justice so toas do regard both advancing not that concern as a basis for defendant and rights others whose to a Rather, defendant’s motion. denying speedy may thereby trial affected. Id. justice concern that expressing its -, at at 1616-17. also solely by defendant’s motion was motivated Baines, Pa. at 389 A.2d at 70. In considerations, com specifically tactical deed, public’s “the in the dispensa interest pel try his wife’s case first tion of unreasonably not de having testify against to avoid her her Burton, layed great has force.” 584 F.2d at trial, by any rather than in the deficiency performance of counsel. Notwithstanding that he counsel’s remark had “never had case, In defendant challenges representing luck clients who don’t the denial of his motion for withdrawal of me,” want to be the record counsel and the denial continuance compel a finding does that counsel was which have would resulted therefrom. It is prepared unwilling for inadequately firmly established whether a continu fact, proceed with the defense case. In ance granted will be on ground having represented defendant in the two is required more time to obtain adequate trials, prior certainly counsel was in a more legal representation at in given case be position any newly informed than would entirely rests within the sound discretion of appointed counsel. ABA See Standards presiding justice and the decision will (2d 1980). Criminal Justice 5-5.2 ed. not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that judgment Stinson, 327, discretion. State v. 424 A.2d should be afforded considerable deference. (Me.1981). 332 A continuance which is requests appointment of Unfounded for the sought to retain or replace impli new counsel the virtual eve of trial cates the right Sixth Amendment should not for achieving become a vehicle and, assistance of counsel in such circum No deni- delay. error was committed in the stances, “the must to select counsel al of the motion for withdrawal of counsel. carefully the public’s balanced in terest in orderly jus administration II. Burton, tice.” However, 584 A.2d at 489. During his cross-examination “only unreasoning arbitrary an ‘insis Ames, State Police Detective defense coun upon expeditiousness tence in the of a face sel him a conversation he questioned about justifiable request delay’ violates the had had with defendant. asked: Counsel the assistance of counsel.” Morris informa “Okay, you did relate him - U.S. at -, Slappy, v. 103 S.Ct. at you tion that received from Barbara [Thibo- 1616, Sarafite, quoting Ungar v. 376 U.S. “I have responded: Ames deau]?” 589, 841, 921 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d At told him that —that she had confessed.” (1964). sidebar, for mistrial and counsel moved Issac, Engle language employed by interpret adequate See 2. We defense. sure simply as a rearticulation well S.Ct. Anaya, principle (1982). established guarantees Constitution State v. also L.Ed.2d 783 fair trial criminal defendants (Me. 1983). A.2d attorney necessary competent and a to in- denied, Cir.1979), (1st cert. elicit not intended to stated that he had 918, 100 mo- denied the response. The court produce no burden to guys The State had tion, expect can’t stating: “You standing defendant’s keep leav- evidence until dodging open you holes keep sup of the The denial been established. ing.” motion, was not accordingly, pression gave that the court Despite fact Philbrick, erroneous,” “clearly State ap in form curative instructions separate no error (Me.1981), and A.2d 854-55 now the defense proved by defense was committed required because argues that reversal testimony re admitting gun and the put fact of co-defendant’s confession into evidence. garding of invited jury. before the The doctrine error, however, such a re does not IV. re invited the Having knowingly

sult. Ames, the defense sponse from Detective that the argues next The defendant reversible error. State cannot now claim admitting into evidence erred in 1276, 1279(Me.1983), Wilson, A.2d copy victim’s will and a copy (Me.1979). 407 A.2d 20-21 Gray, log establishing de from a firearms page Florida of bullets from a purchase fendant’s III. objected to the store. Defendant hardware the basis of both documents on the court introduction rule. M.R.Evid. 1002- best-evidence weapon and admitting erred in the murder because the contends that about 1004. Defendant police of one of the officers testimony originals obtained the could have Thibodeau’s State finding money in Barbara log, the will and the firearms from the J-P both the house that had been taken evidence was error. effect, copies into the defense chal admission Cash Market. In however, lacking position, hearing held before Defendant’s lenges suppression At that hear merit. of the second trial. the start from defend

ing, testimony the court heard preliminary determination of The “[a]ll from counsel on defend argument ant and make established to matters which must be by found suppress pistol ant’s the motion questions are secondary evidence admissible River, the in Aroostook police the subject to the the court and ... of fact for Thibodeau’s home. money found in Barbara .” ... Justice trial of the discretion sound motion to The court denied the defense’s (Me.1977). Lewis, 373 A.2d State the basis on suppress pistol no abuse of discre- has shown standing. of defendant’s lack Further, not contend defendant did tion. contend, that the trial, he now the denial nor does challenge not Defendant does inaccurate. Given any way are in copies on traditional suppression motion circumstances, error would any Instead, asserts that defendant grounds. is complaining any record harmless. produce failure to the State’s “[I]f as dispute an actual whether there is hearing compels asked suppression evidence at the cannot writing and he terms of the not meet that the did the conclusion State faith dis- good a assurance that such suppres give issue of proof its burden of on the rule exists, deviation from the however, assertion, pute overlooks sion. That Cyr, error.” be harmless the initial bur should the fact that defendant had (Me.1978), quoting 836 n. 1 of his consti 389 A.2d establishing den of a violation 1004).3 Dall, to M.R.Evid. Advisor’s Note rights. tutional See United States authenticity Accord, Georgalis, question raised as to the F.2d is United States original (2) it would be (5th Cir.1980) (applying in circumstances Federal duplicate lieu of the Evidence). in unfair to admit Fed.R.Evid. Rules of Under original.” (1) genuine “duplicate” is “unless admissible V. sorry today’s majority On this record clude that Defendant had in by The final issue raised defendant on for his effective “Assistance Counsel appeal is totally lacking in merit and re- which, defense” the Fourteenth quires no discussion. Amendment, the Amendment to the Sixth entry The is: Constitution guarantees United States Judgment of conviction affirmed. in every accused our courts. White, is In the of Mr. Justice it phrases C.J., McKUSICK, and GODFREY and unacceptable legal “tenuous fiction” WATHEN, JJ., concurring. suggest “repre- unwanted counsel presented sents” a defendant. defense NICHOLS, Justice, dissenting. by guaran- such counsel defense compelling What state interest was by teed the accused the Constitution “for in served requiring indigent Defend- sense, very real it not his defense.” ant, Donald Ayers, to stand trial for the California, 806, 821, Faretta v. murder, third time for represented only by 2525, 2534, (1975). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d two attorneys who were unsuccessful his The majority elevate form over sub- previous defense the two trials I cannot concur. stance. murder, same for indictment whose removal from the case for cause this Defend- my I take stand with the United States ant had sought, and who themselves had Supreme Court when declares: asked leave to withdraw from case? requirement constitutional of sub- equality stantial process

The answer and fair can is none. be attained where counsel acts in the role Moreover, it is a defendant’s confidence of an active advocate in behalf of his in his counsel which is critical to effec- client, opposed to that of amicus curi- tive presentation defense, not the con- ae. fidence of the presiding justice in coun- 738, 744, California, Anders v. sel who had appointed. been Upon learning that the case again I prefer to Judge stand with Oakes when set being jury trial, the Defendant a panel in the he ob Second Circuit promptly sought the appointment of coun- serves that is perhaps sel to defend him other than lawyers those criminal most crucial afforded de who had represented him in the losing fendants, unwillingness and counsel’s efforts. For reasons not disclosed arguments which a present particular de record, counsel let a week go they before may request to abridge fendant functions made this known to the presiding on right that defendant’s counsel justice; they did, when still ten days before Jones, (2d Barnes Cir. the trial was begin, scheduled to 1981). themselves also asked leave to withdraw. adamant, The presiding justice was an- guiding “the importance of hand of nouncing counsel,” the Alabama, Defendant’s move was Powell v. 287 U.S. effect, “in just way get 55, 64, back door (1932), 53 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. 158 in continuance,” charge justice which the Defend- our criminal no reit- system requires ant expressly denied. the adversary So murder trial eration. an of system “In crimi- ensued, with the same reluctant lawyers justice, right at nal there is essential no more presenting counsel table a less than zealous the of right than to the assistance counsel.” The jury defense.1 him guilty. found Oregon, Lakeside v. U.S. particular, 1. In it should be noted the limited mission of much of the State’s were evidence key uninspired of cross-examination certain for witnesses indicative the nature of the de- stipulation the State and counsel’s the ad- fense. that confidence 1091, 1096, why the defendant 55 L.Ed.2d 319 It

S.Ct. the effective assistance the court should substitute does not exist an is able to translate counsel that accused counsel.” guaran- panoply the full of constitutional attorneys Twice may aid his personal rights tees into murder, as soon as the twice convicted of defense. im- knew that a third trial was Effective assistance of counsel is of cardi- minent, Superior the conveyed accused, whether he importance nal to an his loss his dissatisfaction wealthy indigent. It is self-evident to com- inability in them and his confidence justice be no where equal can “[t]here Referring with them. reasonably municate gets depends the kind of trial a man on the unwilling clients prior experience v. Illi- amount of he has.” Griffin relationship for a special the need nois, this, attorneys the in a case such as trust (1956). Accordingly, provi- L.Ed. 891 the the rela- their desire terminate expressed sion of effective of counsel for assistance aggregate This in the constituted tionship. matter of indigent defendant is not a “good cause.” governmental it is a constitution- largesse; Second, denying appli- the withdrawal Ham- requirement. Argersinger al justice gave undue cation the lin, 25, 37-38, 2012- U.S. S.Ct. in adher- to the State’s interest sideration (1977); Gideon v. L.Ed.2d so that ing to the announced schedule 344-45, Wainwright, 372 U.S. any not be able to assert Defendant would 792, 796-97, (1963); Powell v. trial. forthcoming at his wife’s privilege Alabama, 71-72, 53 S.Ct. at irrele- clearly This matter was extrinsic and whether, today question We face De- of whether the question vant under of this the unusual circumstances in this case fendant merited new counsel case, denying erred in bearing on this should not have had application appoint- of the Defendant’s Furthermore, justice it was decision. ed counsel to withdraw from the case. im- subject potential who introduced For several reasons I submit trial at a time when the pact on the wife’s defense Superior denying Court erred focused attention should have been justice’s First, application counsel’s to withdraw. this Defendant in his on what was fair to although indigent defendant discussing po- In the course of trial. his always have a to counsel of abruptly shifting impact, justice tential choice,2 clearly he has the to substitu- the Defendant gears, announced tion of “good cause.”3 motive.” This was con- underlying “some Mini- Commentary Project to the ABA justice; it was jecture part on the Justice, mum Stan- Standards Criminal proof. matter of not a Relating Providing dards Defense Serv- Third, of this case were ices, 5.3, well: the circumstances p. states it § suf- case would have such that State’s relationship of mutual confidence Since pre- assumed little even if—as fered important between and client is lawyer of counsel substitution siding of his lawyer’s profession- fulfillment —the delay. All have involved some functions, might al cause is shown where 957, States, Attorney Tague, Indigent’s Right v. United An lock 2. Medina, Choice, 73, (1974); 1582, (1966); People His 27 Stan.L.Rev. 96-97 553 v. 16 L.Ed.2d 592, Indigent Right 588, to Annotation: Accused’s 375 404 N.Y.S.2d 44 N.Y.2d Rep- Appointed States, 768, to (1978); Choose Particular Counsel v. 94 772 Thomas N.E.2d Him, (1975). resent 66 A.L.R.3d 996 674, 605, (1978); 676 Common- Nev. 584 P.2d 265, 262, Velasquez, A.2d 437 Pa. wealth Harris, (2d 649 F.2d 3. See McKee v. (1970). 353-44 Burkeen, Cir.1981); United States (6th Cir.) denied sub. nom. Mat- cert. testimony of the State’s witnesses was generally Carrington, Right safe- The to ly preserved the transcripts previ- 1291; Counsel, 1979 Duke R. Zealous L.J. has, ous trials. Superior to be Boston, Herman, J. Single E. Counsel sure, legitimate a appropriate interest Poor, (1977). for the 173-74 docket,” in “moving the but matters of Superior While the Court in error administrative convenience must de- denying application defense counsel’s ferred until the court steps has taken issue on appeal, withdraw is the the anomo- assure the individual accused of a fair trial. that, first, Superior of this case is ly Taking these three factors together, a Court ruled on motion to continue which the circumstances of this case Superior made, and in was never fact disavowed Court’s denial of applica- defense counsel’s Defendant; and, second, majori- today’s tion to withdraw and failure to appoint new ty, discussing delays,” after “unwarranted counsel constituted an abuse of discretion.4 proceeds appeal to sustain on denial this Defendant, To compel this Superi- as the a to continue motion which was never did, or Court a undergo trial for murder made! with attorneys assistance of whom he could not reasonably communicate majority are citing ap While and with whom conflicts of had opinion proval Slappy, - U.S. -, Morris v. developed was, in effect, to deprive him of 1610, 75 (1983), L.Ed.2d 610 case is this any counsel whatsoever. Cf. Brown v. Cra- distinguishable several scores. Here the ven, 424 (9th Cir.1970). F.2d 1166 Defendant asked for new as soon counsel indigent’s

An request for new counsel a learned that third trial had been sched should never be treated in such cavalier previously Here appointed uled. coun shown, manner. Where cause can be sel asked leave withdraw. Here De new should be People substituted. through repre fendant been two trials Sawyer, 83 A.D.2d 443 N.Y.S.2d attorneys sented with unsatisfac (1981). tory results.5 value in interest here is the court’s Today’s majority indulges in same duty to refrain from unreasonable interfer assumptions im- ence with the individual’s desire to defend that, course, made: the Defend- plicitly himself in best, whatever manner he deems ant would be found that his guilty and using every legitimate resource at his com almost three weeks before —made mand. Superior Smith v. Court of Los An delaying nothing trial —was a tactic and geles County, Cal.Rptr. 1, Cal.2d indigent more. The result —an Defendant 440 P.2d People Cf. murder, on trial for Gzikowski, Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d confidence, in whom he had lost with whom 1145, 1149(1982). 651 P.2d An individ communicate, he could not reasonably ual’s desire can constitutionally be forced to from who themselves wanted withdraw yield only it significant when will result in nothing the case—was more than prejudice to the defendant himself or a “right” trived cosmetic. The Defendant’s disruption orderly processes an empty to counsel in ease became unreasonable under the circumstances the case. Id. formality, far short of what the Sixth that, Parenthetically, may compelling 4. be noted after be noted that after It losing appeal first which go the Defendant third trial with the Defendant Court, brought oppor- to our the State took the Superior reluctant Court did same tunity change present appeal. counsel for the appear different counsel for the De It would have no than been more even-handed fendant on this justice to have accorded this simi- opportunity to lar substitute new counsel the old. guarantee Amendment intended to was

every accused.

The Superior gone have but, motions, De- denying the

fendant counsel who had his confidence and

with whom he could communicate effective-

ly, deprived day of his court. The him

perfunctory per- which the defense not, submit,

mitted I Ayers Donald

effective assistance of counsel. It was a

sham.

I would sustain his

Lyman CONARY, Raymond Conary, Kent Wyman Conary

Conary and

George PERKINS, Perkins, Ingrid E. H.

Elston Mitchell and Amorette Mitchell.

Supreme Judicial Court Maine.

Argued Nov. 1982. Aug.

Decided

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Ayers

Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date Published: Aug 31, 1983

Citation: 464 A.2d 963

Court Abbreviation: Me.