State of Maine v. Nancy A. Fredette (Maine 1983)

Summary

The court vacated Nancy Fredette’s murder conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted three witnesses’ testimony about the unavailable witness’s prior statements. Those statements were neither declarations against penal interest nor admissible prior consistent statements, and the error was prejudicial in a circumstantial-evidence case. The court also upheld the mistrial and retrial against the double-jeopardy challenge, rejected the late objection to nonresponsive former testimony, and held that a deposition could be used to impeach the unavailable witness. Justice Carter, joined by Justice Dufresne, concurred in the result but rejected any restriction on legitimate objections at the second trial based on the first trial.

Holding

Double jeopardy and the retrial after the mistrial. The retrial did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant consented to the jury’s discharge through counsel’s participation and failure to object; alternatively, the trial court acted within its discretion because the jury was genuinely deadlocked and manifest necessity supported the mistrial.

Admission of Laverriere’s statements as statements against penal interest. The trial court improperly admitted Laverriere’s statements as statements against penal interest because, when made, they did not expose him to criminal liability or another legally recognized interest covered by the exception.

Admission of Laverriere’s statements as prior consistent statements. The statements were improperly admitted as prior consistent statements because the defense evidence fairly implied that Laverriere had the same motive to fabricate when he made the earlier statements as when he testified at trial.

Late objection to nonresponsive portions of former testimony. The defendant could not object at the second trial to nonresponsive answers in former testimony when the objection could have been made and corrected during the first trial.

Use of a deposition to impeach former testimony. The trial court erred by excluding the deposition for impeachment purposes merely because it preceded the later trial testimony and was not used at the first trial.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities