Title: State of Maine v. John M. Dominique

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2011 ME 18 Docket: Han-10-223 Submitted On Briefs: January 27, 2011 Decided: February 8, 2011 Panel: ALEXANDER, LEVY, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. JOHN M. DOMINIQUE PER CURIAM [¶1] John M. Dominique appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Hancock County, Cuddy, J.), following a jury verdict convicting him of operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A) (2007).1 We dismiss Dominique’s appeal for his failure to timely prepare and file an appendix in compliance with M.R. App. P. 8. Pursuant to M.R. App. P. 8(j), “The failure to file an appendix, or the failure to include in the appendix any document required to be included as set out in this rule, may result in the dismissal of the appeal or other sanction.” See also State v. Ross, 2004 ME 12, ¶ 1, 841 A.2d 814, 814.2 1 Title 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A) (2007) has since been amended, though that amendment is not relevant in the present case. P.L. 2009, ch. 447, § 37 (effective Sept. 12, 2009) (codified at 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A) (2010)). 2 We note, after a thorough review of Dominique’s arguments on appeal and the record, that were we to ignore Dominique’s failure to timely file a proper appendix and reach the appeal on its merits, we 2 The entry is: Appeal dismissed. Attorney for John Dominique: Wayne R. Foote, Esq. Law Offices of Wayne R. Foote, PA 344 Mount Hope Avenue Bangor, Maine 04401 Attorney for the State of Maine: Michael E. Povich, District Attorney Jacqueline L. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty. Prosecutorial District No. VII 70 State Street PO Box 722 Ellsworth, Maine 04605 Hancock County Superior Court docket number CR-2007-288 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY would affirm his conviction because (1) the court did not clearly err nor abuse its discretion to the prejudice of Dominique in allowing testimony regarding vertical gaze nystagmus, see State v. Taylor, 1997 ME 81, ¶ 10, 694 A.2d 907, 910; (2) the court did not clearly err in permitting a testifying witness to refresh his recollection using a police report he had authored, see State v. Hamel, 2007 ME 18, ¶ 3, 913 A.2d 1287, 1288; and (3) Dominique was not prejudiced by statements made in the State’s closing argument to the jury because “it is highly probable that the jury’s determination of guilt was unaffected by the prosecutor’s comments,” see State v. Pelletier, 673 A.2d 1327, 1330 (Me. 1996) (citations omitted).