Title: Maine v. Kimball

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
 
 
 
     
    Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2016 ME 75 
Docket: 
Cum-15-294 
Argued: 
April 7, 2016 
Decided: 
May 24, 2016 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. 
 
 
STATE OF MAINE 
 
v. 
 
MERRILL KIMBALL 
 
 
MEAD, J. 
[¶1]  Merrill Kimball appeals from a judgment of conviction for intentional 
or knowing murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A) (2015), entered in the Unified 
Criminal Docket (Cumberland County, Cole, J.) following a jury trial.  Kimball 
contends that the court erred in (1) declining to give a jury instruction addressing 
the affirmative defense of adequate provocation, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(3) (2015), 
(2) admitting evidence that he had been drinking on the day that he shot the victim, 
and (3) limiting evidence concerning the relationships between Kimball’s family 
members and the victim’s family members.  We affirm the judgment. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
[¶2]  Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence 
supports the following facts.  See State v. Weaver, 2016 ME 12, ¶ 2, 130 A.3d 972.  
Stan Brown is a ninety-five-year-old resident of North Yarmouth, where he lives 
 
2 
on his farm and keeps bees.  The shooting at issue in this case took place in the 
context of a dispute between members of Brown’s family,1 and Merrill Kimball 
and his wife Karen Kimball.2  Karen helped Brown at the farm and also raised her 
own bees and harvested honey there.  The inter-familial dispute centered primarily 
on the extent of Karen’s purported influence over Brown and her inclusion in his 
will. 
 
[¶3]  On October 6, 2013, Craig Rawnsley, Brown’s grandson, was at the 
farm.  After he called Karen Kimball to tell her that “things were going to change 
around here,” Karen became concerned about the several thousand dollars’ worth 
of harvested honey that she had stored at Brown’s farm.  Eventually, Brown’s 
family members and Karen and Merrill Kimball all went to the farm. 
 
[¶4]  Kathleen Kelley, Brown’s daughter, testified that when Merrill Kimball 
arrived in his truck, he drove down the driveway “[v]ery fast . . . and the rocks 
were flying.”  Rawnsley was standing by the shop where the honey was stored.  
When he asked the Kimballs to leave, Karen said that she would wait for the 
sheriff to arrive.  Kathleen Kelley then called 9-1-1.  Merrill and Leon Kelley, 
Kathleen’s husband, encountered each other in the driveway; Merrill asked Leon, 
                                         
1  Members of Brown’s family present at the shooting were Kathleen Kelley, Brown’s daughter; Leon 
Kelley, the victim and Kathleen’s husband; Robin Rawnsley-Dutil, Kathleen’s daughter and Brown’s 
granddaughter; and Craig Rawnsley, Kathleen’s son and Brown’s grandson. 
 
2  Damon Carroll, who is Karen Kimball’s son and Merrill Kimball’s stepson, was also present. 
 
3 
“Who the fuck are you?”  After Leon took Merrill by the shoulders to turn him 
around and asked him to wait by the road, Merrill tried to push Leon but instead 
stumbled backward about three steps.  He then pulled out a handgun and shot Leon 
three times; Leon died from his wounds at a hospital soon afterward. 
 
[¶5]  The Cumberland County Grand Jury indicted Kimball for murder, 
17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A).  He pleaded not guilty and retained counsel.  The case 
went to trial in April 2015; at its conclusion the jury returned a verdict of guilty.  
Kimball’s post-trial motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial were 
denied.  At a sentencing hearing, the court entered judgment and sentenced 
Kimball to twenty-five years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $5000 in 
restitution to the Victims’ Compensation Fund.  Kimball appealed. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A. 
Adequate Provocation Instruction  
[¶6]  Kimball states that the “[m]ost serious” issue on appeal is the trial 
court’s alleged error in declining to instruct the jury on adequate provocation 
manslaughter.  In its initial charge, the court thoroughly instructed the jury on the 
elements of murder, manslaughter, self-defense, and imperfect self-defense.  See 
17-A M.R.S. §§ 108(2), 201, 203 (2015); State v. Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, ¶ 13 n.4, 
38 A.3d 1278 (“If a defendant acted with imperfect self-defense, in that it may 
have been unreasonable for him to believe that deadly force was necessary, then 
 
4 
the defendant cannot be held criminally liable for any crime requiring intention or 
knowledge of the actor, but he can be held responsible for a crime for which 
recklessness or criminal negligence suffices as the culpable mental state.” 
(citations and quotation marks omitted)).  After the court completed its instructions 
it asked the attorneys for comment at sidebar; Kimball said that he was satisfied, 
although he did not think that the written instructions should be sent into the jury 
room. 
[¶7]  The jury began deliberating on the afternoon of April 14, 2015, 
recessed for the evening without reaching a verdict, and continued the following 
morning.  After the jury resumed deliberations on April 15, the court met with 
counsel in chambers concerning Kimball’s request—apparently prompted by an 
article that appeared in that day’s local newspaper—that the court give the jury an 
additional instruction concerning adequate provocation manslaughter.  The 
statutory affirmative defense of adequate provocation, if proved by the defendant 
by a preponderance of the evidence, reduces a murder charge to manslaughter:3 
3.  It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution [for intentional or 
knowing murder] that the person causes the death while under the 
influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought about by adequate 
provocation. 
 
4.  For purposes of subsection 3, provocation is adequate if: 
                                         
3  17-A M.R.S. §§ 101(2), 203(1)(B) (2015); see State v. Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, ¶ 1 n.1, 
38 A.3d 1278. 
 
5 
 
A.  It is not induced by the person; and 
 
B.  It is reasonable for the person to react to the provocation with 
extreme 
anger 
or 
extreme 
fear, 
provided 
that 
evidence 
demonstrating only that the person has a tendency towards extreme 
anger or extreme fear is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish 
the reasonableness of the person’s reaction. 
 
17-A M.R.S. § 201(3)-(4) (2015). 
[¶8]  The State, relying on Hanaman, objected to the requested instruction.  
The court observed that “[f]rom the time that this case was assigned to me in 
meeting with the attorneys, it was described as being a classic case of 
self-defense . . . it was never suggested that extreme anger or extreme fear were 
going to be a part of this case.”  After discussing Hanaman, the court declined to 
give Kimball’s requested instruction, ruling that (1) the affirmative defense of 
adequate provocation was not generated by the evidence; and (2) the instruction 
would be confusing to the jury. 
[¶9]  In Hanaman, we said that 
[w]e will vacate a judgment based on a denied request for a jury 
instruction if the appellant demonstrates that the requested instruction 
(1) stated the law correctly; (2) was generated by the evidence; 
(3) was not misleading or confusing; and (4) was not sufficiently 
covered in the instructions the court gave.  In addition, the court’s 
refusal to give the requested instruction must have been prejudicial to 
the requesting party. 
 
2012 ME 40, ¶ 16, 38 A.3d 1278 (citation omitted). 
 
6 
[¶10]  Concerning the question of whether the adequate provocation 
instruction was generated in this case, 
[i]t is the [trial] court, in the first instance, that must determine 
whether the evidence is legally sufficient to generate the adequate 
provocation manslaughter defense.  Viewing the evidence in a light 
most favorable to the defendant, the court must determine as a 
question of law whether there is any evidence from which the jury 
could find provocation and other elements that would reduce the 
offense to manslaughter.  The test for measuring the sufficiency of the 
evidence is whether a jury could rationally have found that the 
defense was established by a preponderance of the evidence. 
 
Id. ¶ 18 (citations and quotation marks omitted).  A court makes that determination 
in light of our observation that “[t]here are few instances when we have recognized 
conduct as being sufficient to engender extreme anger or fear and mitigate the 
conduct of a defendant.”  Id. ¶ 23 (quotation marks omitted).  That is so, in part, 
because the victim’s provocation must be “of such a nature that [the defendant’s] 
reaction to it with extreme anger or extreme fear was objectively reasonable.”  
Id. ¶ 20.  We review questions of law de novo.  Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 
2016 ME 45, ¶ 5, --- A.3d ---. 
[¶11]  Here, the court found that the adequate provocation manslaughter 
instruction was not generated because the evidence was not legally sufficient to 
support an objectively reasonable conclusion that the victim provoked Kimball to 
such an extent that Kimball’s culpability in using deadly force was reduced.  We 
agree.  The court accurately summarized the trial testimony: 
 
7 
[O]nce [Kimball and Leon Kelley] met in the driveway . . . [Kimball] 
was told to leave in pretty abrupt language, [] his shoulders were 
taken and turned and he was directed to leave. . . . [H]e was pushed 
with open hands several times . . . backwards and he retreated.  
[Kimball] elected to go there.  He was requested to leave by the 
people there.  I don’t see that those facts would support a claim for 
adequate provocation. 
 
 
[¶12]  We conclude that Kelley, who was unarmed, did not act in a way that 
was objectively sufficient, as a matter of law, to provoke extreme anger or fear in 
Kimball and thereby justify Kimball’s deadly response in wielding a firearm and 
shooting Kelley multiple times.  See, e.g., State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108, ¶ 42, 
830 A.2d 433 (concluding that the victim heatedly arguing with, slapping, and 
hitting the defendant did not constitute adequate provocation to extreme anger 
justifying the use of deadly force).  Similarly, neither the threat of economic harm 
to Kimball’s wife posed by the potential loss of the honey that she had stored at the 
farm, nor any perceived threat resulting from the Brown family’s hostility to her 
inclusion in Stan Brown’s will, could constitute adequate provocation justifying 
Kimball’s shooting Leon Kelley. 
 
[¶13]  Concerning the relationship between instructions on self-defense and 
adequate provocation and the potential for jury confusion, we said in Hanaman 
that 
[w]e recognize that both instructions are sometimes given.  However, 
it is the rare case in which a fact-finder could find that the State has 
carried its burden of disproving self-defense and then go on to find, 
 
8 
under the same set of facts, that the defendant has nonetheless carried 
his burden of proving adequate provocation manslaughter.  This is not 
one of those cases. Under the facts of this case, we cannot conclude 
that the court erred when it determined that self-defense instructions, 
with a burden of proof more favorable to [the defendant], subsumed 
an instruction as to adequate provocation manslaughter. 
 
Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, ¶ 28, 38 A.3d 1278 (citation and footnote omitted).  As an 
example of a case where both instructions might be given, we hypothesized 
“a parent observing severe abuse of his or her child, confronting the perpetrator, 
and killing the perpetrator after the perpetrator attacks the parent.”  Id. ¶ 28 n.6. 
 
[¶14]  The trial court, relying on Hanaman, did not err in concluding that 
this was not a case where both instructions were required.  The court instructed the 
jury that 
if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the 
following three things, that is, one, that Merrill Kimball did not 
actually believe that Leon Kelley was about to use unlawful deadly 
force against him or a third person or, two, that Mr. Kimball did not 
actually believe his use of deadly force was necessary to defend 
himself or a third person against Mr. Kelley or, three, that 
Mr. Kimball or a third person failed to retreat from the encounter with 
Mr. Kelley, despite the fact that he or that person knew that he or the 
third person could do so with complete safety, then the State has met 
its burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of 
self-defense and you should find Mr. Kimball guilty. 
 
See 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(A)(1), (C)(3)(a) (2015); Alexander, Maine Jury 
Instruction Manual § 6-61 at 6-112 (2016 ed.).  Because it found Kimball guilty, 
 
9 
the jury necessarily found that the State proved at least one of the three alternatives 
beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 
[¶15]  In this case, any of the three alternatives makes an “extreme anger or 
extreme fear brought about by adequate provocation” defense4 untenable, in that 
Kimball could not have been adequately provoked to use deadly force to ward off 
Leon Kelley if he believed that (1) there was no imminent threat of deadly force 
from Kelley, or (2) the use of deadly force against Kelley to defend himself was 
unnecessary, or (3) he could have safely retreated.  For that reason, it would be 
confusing to the jury for it to find that the State had disproved Kimball’s need to 
use deadly force in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, only to then be asked 
whether Kimball had proved by a preponderance that the same deadly force was 
nevertheless a mitigating circumstance.  See 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(B) (“The fact 
that the person causes the death while under the influence of extreme anger or 
extreme fear brought about by adequate provocation constitutes a mitigating 
circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter . . . .”).  As the court found, this is 
not the “rare case” requiring that both self-defense and adequate provocation 
instructions be given.  See Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, ¶ 28 & n.6, 38 A.3d 1278. 
                                         
4  17-A M.R.S. § 201(3). 
 
10 
B. 
Kimball’s Additional Arguments 
 
[¶16]  Kimball makes two other arguments in his initial brief, neither of 
which is persuasive.  He first contends that evidence that he drank alcohol on the 
day of the shooting, absent any evidence that he was impaired, was irrelevant and 
unfairly prejudicial.  We review the trial court’s “determination of relevance for 
clear error,” State v. Adams, 2015 ME 30, ¶ 11, 113 A.3d 583 (quotation marks 
omitted), and reiterate that “pursuant to M.R. Evid. 403[,] [t]he trial court has 
broad discretion to weigh the relevance of evidence against the danger of unfair 
prejudice to the defendant.”  State v. Jackson, 1997 ME 174, ¶ 9, 697 A.2d 1328 
(footnote omitted). 
 
[¶17]  There was evidence admitted at trial that Kimball had consumed two 
rum and cokes over the course of an hour at a friend’s house on the afternoon of 
the shooting.  Although there was no evidence that he was physically impaired, the 
fact that Kimball had been drinking on the afternoon of the shooting was relevant 
because the jury could consider whether it had an effect on Kimball’s state of 
mind, judgment, or impulsivity, as well as his credibility on other issues.  See 
M.R. Evid. 401 (“Evidence is relevant if [] [i]t has any tendency to make a fact [of 
consequence] more or less probable . . . .” (emphasis added)).  It was therefore 
presumptively admissible.  M.R. Evid. 402.  On this record, the court acted within 
its broad discretion in determining that the evidence of Kimball’s drinking was not 
 
11 
unfairly prejudicial, and that it was for the jury to determine the weight to give that 
evidence.  See M.R. Evid. 403; State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 13, 892 A.2d 456 
(“To sustain a Rule 403 objection, the prejudice must be more than simply damage 
to the opponent’s cause.” (quotation marks omitted)). 
 
[¶18]  Second, Kimball contends that the court erred in limiting evidence of 
the animosity between Stan Brown’s family and the Kimballs resulting from Karen 
Kimball’s inclusion in Brown’s will.  “We review a trial court’s decision to 
exclude or admit evidence for an abuse of discretion or clear error.”  State v. 
Waterman, 2010 ME 45, ¶ 35, 995 A.2d 243 (quotation marks omitted).  Contrary 
to Kimball’s contention, our review of the record reveals that the court admitted 
extensive evidence concerning the inter-familial dispute.  The court did not abuse 
its discretion in its very minor limitation of evidence concerning that issue in order 
to keep the trial focused on the central issue of whether Kimball was criminally 
culpable for killing Leon Kelley.  See Laux v. Harrington, 2012 ME 18, ¶ 37, 
38 A.3d 318 (stating that a court has the discretion under M.R. Evid. 403 to avoid 
“a potentially lengthy mini-trial”). 
C. 
Brady v. Maryland Issues 
 
[¶19]  The sole issue raised in Kimball’s reply brief is his contention that the 
State committed a discovery violation, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 
(1963), and its progeny, when it did not make him aware of information 
 
12 
concerning the Chief Medical Examiner’s former employment as the 
Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Kimball 
himself notes that the information at issue was contained in a published opinion of 
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  See Flomenbaum v. Commonwealth, 
889 N.E.2d 423 (Mass. 2008).  The record does not indicate whether this 
information was available to, or in the possession of, the State to any greater 
degree than it was to Kimball.  We discern no Brady violation upon these facts.   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Daniel G. Lilley, Esq., and Cheryl A. Richardson, Esq., Daniel 
G. Lilley Law Offices, P.A., Portland, for appellant Merrill 
Kimball 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Donald W. Macomber, 
Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for 
appellee State of Maine 
 
At oral argument: 
 
Daniel G. Lilley, Esq., for appellant Merrill Kimball 
 
Donald W. Macomber, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State of 
Maine 
 
 
Cumberland County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2013-7553 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY