Case Title: State of Maine v. Jacob McInnis Sr.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2010-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
State of Maine v. Jacob McInnis Sr.  Download PDF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2010 ME 13 Docket: Ken-08-439 Argued: January 13, 2010 Decided: February 18, 2010 Panel: Reporter of Decisions SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, and MEAD, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. JACOB McINNIS SR. PER CURIAM [¶1] Jacob McInnis Sr. appeals from judgments of conviction of one count each of kidnapping (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 301(1)(A)(5) (2009); robbery (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 651 (2009); conspiracy to commit robbery (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 151 (2009); burglary (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 401(1)(B)(4) (2009); and theft by unauthorized taking (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 353(1)(B)(4) (2009), entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Marden, J.) following a jury trial. [¶2] Contrary to McInnis s contentions: (1) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct by arranging, over McInnis s objection, to have incarcerated State s witnesses testify wearing civilian clothing rather than orange jail uniforms, see State v. Boylan, 665 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1995) (stating the standard of review); 2 (2) the suppression court (Mills, J.) did not commit an error of law, nor were its findings of fact clearly erroneous, when it determined that the procedure used during the out-of-court identification was not unduly suggestive in violation of McInnis s due process rights, see State v. DiPietro, 2009 ME 12, ¶ 13, 964 A.2d 636, 640 (stating the standard of review); State v. Kelly, 2000 ME 107, ¶ 19, 752 A.2d 188, 192 (discussing the test applied to determine whether an out-of-court identification should be admitted into evidence); State v. Prentiss, 557 A.2d 619, 620 (Me. 1989) (discussing due process rights with respect to unduly suggestive out-of-court identification procedures); and (3) the suppression court (Jabar, J.) did not err in denying McInnis s request to hold a Franks hearing, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶¶ 37-38, 932 A.2d 1169, 1176-77.1 [¶3] At trial, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the testimony elicited by the State that McInnis s shoes potentially matched shoeprints observed at the crime scene did not require expert testimony, see M.R. Evid. 701, 702; Mitchell v. Kieliszek, 2006 ME 70, ¶¶ 11, 13-14, 900 A.2d 719, 722-23 (discussing when expert testimony required); nor did the court commit obvious error in admitting police officers lay testimony concerning the shoeprints, see 1 We decline to reach the issue of what standard of review, clear error or de novo, applies to the denial of a Franks hearing because we uphold the court s decision under either standard. See State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶ 37, 932 A.2d 1169, 1176. 3 M.R. Evid. 403, 701; State v. Roberts, 2008 ME 112, ¶ 21, 951 A.2d 803, 810-11 (stating standard of review). Further, the challenged statements made by the prosecutor during closing and rebuttal arguments did not constitute misconduct. See State v. Clark, 2008 ME 136, ¶ 7, 954 A.2d 1066, 1068-69 (stating standard of review).2 [¶4] We do not review on direct appeal the post-judgment denial of public funds to pay McInnis s expert for appearance at trial; this issue does not arise from the judgment of conviction or assert errors in the determination of guilt. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2009); see generally State v. Huntley, 676 A.2d 501, 503 (Me. 1996). The entry is: Judgment affirmed. Attorney for Jacob McInnis Sr.: Robert C. Andrews, Esq. (orally) PO Box 17621 Portland, Maine 04112 2 To the extent McInnis alludes in his brief to other arguments concerning prosecutorial misconduct, they are undeveloped and are deemed waived. See Mehlhorn v. Derby, 2006 ME 110, ¶ 11, 905 A.2d 290, 293. 4 Attorneys for the State of Maine: Evert Fowle, District Attorney Alan P. Kelley, Dep. Dist. Atty. (orally) Prosecutorial District IV Kennebec County Courthouse 95 State Street Augusta, Maine 04330 Kennebec County Superior Court docket number CR-2007-664 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY