STATE OFMAINE SUPERIOR COURT PISCATAQUIS, SS. Docket No. PISCD-CR-2022-0042

STATE OF MAINE ) ) ) ) 

### v. ) Order on Pending Motion ) ) Tory A. Littlefield, ) Defendant. )
By motion dated March 11, 2023, Defendant seeks to dismiss Counts II and VII ofthe Superseding Indictment or, in the alternative, the entire Superseding Indictment, for vindictive prosecution. The courtheard argument on March 15, at which the State was represented by DistrictAttorney R. ChristopherAlmy and Defendant byAttorneyWilliam Maselli. The motion is now in order for decision. Defendant's argumentis grounded in the age ofthe case against him. He was initially charged with five offenses by complaint dated January 24, 2022. Four ofthe charges were felonies with the most serious being ClassA attempted murder. Defendantwas indicted bythe grandjuryless than one month later, on February 14, and charged with the same array ofoffenses. Following further investigation·and pretrial motion practice, the State sought and secured a superseding indictment on March 2, 2023. This instrumentincluded two new charges: in Count II, the Class B crime ofattempted elevated aggravated assault and, in CountVII, the Class D crime ofdomestic violence assault. CountII is factually and logicallyrelated to all the counts in both the complaint and the initial indictment. It alleges an offense based on the same factual sequence and on the same date as all the earlier charges. CountVII is different; it relates to the same alleged victim but is said to have occurred two weeks before the events on which the other 6 charges are based. Defendant argues that the superseding indictmentwas issued after the case had been evaluated, investigation was complete, trial strategyhad been developed, and the case was ready for trial. He believes the State seeks to punish him for exercisinghis right to a trial. The State responds thatits ordinaryprocesses oftrial preparation, including witness interviews and reexaminingthe case, yielded the basis for the new charges.

1The court accepts the State's argument that the new charges arose out of ordinary reevaluation incident to trial preparation. Although Defendant had no reason to expect Count II would be charged so late in the process, his own trial strategy and preparation are unlikely to have been affected by the timing ofthe charge. All along, he has been preparing a defense based on a factual narrative that was included in discovery at the outset. CountVII presents a different problem. To defend against this charge, Defendantwill have to respond to an event that is completely separated by date and place from the other six charges. Further, to admit evidence ofdomestic violence alleged to have occurred two weeks ahead ofthe pending felony counts, involving the same victim, could function as ruinous character testimony. The addition ofCountII to the initial indictmentis logical and permissable. Defendant's motion mustbe DENIED as to it. The addition ofCountVII is potentiallyprejudicial and the motion musttherefore be GRANTED as to it. Order: Defendant's motion to dismiss CountVII ofthe Superseding Indictment is GRANTED; CountVII is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant's motion is in all other respects DENIED.

The Clerkmayincorporate this Orderupon the docket by reference.

Dated: May 12, 2023

Justice, Maine Superior Court llonee

2