State of Maine v. Damien Osborn

Summary

The court affirmed Osborn's convictions, holding that testimony about the confidential informant's prior drug transactions was admissible for non-character purposes and that any improper prosecutorial appeal to social norms did not affect Osborn's substantial rights. It also held that, on the specific facts, the indictment's reference to one continuing scheme or course of conduct was surplusage, so the court was not required to define that phrase for the jury. Because each alleged transaction independently supported the trafficking charge, the specific-unanimity instruction requiring jurors to agree on one incident was proper.