State of Maine v. Aaron C. Engroff

Summary

The court affirmed Engroff’s convictions, holding that neither the Maine nor federal speedy-trial guarantees were violated because the delay was attributable to both sides and the court, and the prejudice shown was insufficient. It also held that the Maine Confrontation Clause permits admission of a recorded forensic interview when the declarant is available for cross-examination. Although the trial court incorrectly applied the original version of the recording statute to Engroff’s pending case, a later clarifying amendment validated its application and independently defeated relief. The opinion contains no separate writings.