State of Maine v. Dennis Therriault (Maine 1984)

Summary

The court vacated the rape conviction because the trial justice erroneously excluded an exculpatory police laboratory report under the business-records exception and the error was prejudicial. The court also held that retrial did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant consented to the mistrial, and that the defendant was not entitled to specific performance of an unconsummated plea proposal. Justices Wathen and Scollnik dissented: Wathen would have affirmed the conviction because the report was inadmissible, while Scollnik would have dismissed the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds.

Holding

Double jeopardy after mistrial. The retrial did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant consented to the mistrial and therefore could not challenge the retrial on that ground.

Specific performance of the alleged plea agreement. The defendant was not entitled to specific performance because the alleged plea bargain was never embodied in a guilty plea or judgment, and the defendant did not otherwise rely on it to his detriment.

Admissibility of the police laboratory report under the business-records exception. The trial justice erred by ruling that the laboratory report was categorically inadmissible because it was investigative, untrustworthy, and unavailable for cross-examination. An investigative report may qualify as a business record, and the record presented no adequate basis for excluding this report on trustworthiness or cross-examination grounds.

Prejudice from exclusion of the police laboratory report. The erroneous exclusion of the report affected a substantial right and was prejudicial because the report supported the defendant's self-penetration theory and contradicted evidence suggesting that the assailant ejaculated.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities