Opinion ID: 2395051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Prosecutor's Representation

Text: The defendant asserts that the prosecutor intentionally misrepresented to the Superior Court that David Willoughby's testimony concerning the date and manner of disposition of lottery tickets stolen from Summer Haven Ice Cream, Inc. would be corroborated by the testimony of his brother-in-law, John Glidden. He further contends that this allegedly intentional misrepresentation to the court resulted in the trial justice's reversal of his earlier ruling excluding the testimony of David Willoughby, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial. We disagree. We first note that the defendant did not preserve any claim of error for appeal. At no point did counsel for the defendant, who was in possession of a statement made by Glidden concerning the disposition of the tickets, dispute the prosecutor's representation of the contents of the statement. Furthermore, the defendant has failed to include a copy of Glidden's statement in this record on appeal. We therefore review only for obvious error, which we have defined as one that was `so highly prejudicial and so taint[ed] the proceeding as virtually to deprive the aggrieved party of a fair trial.' State v. Reeves, 499 A.2d at 136 (quoting State v. True, 438 A.2d at 468). Two clear principles are involved in the analysis of this issue. First, a lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement or conceal information legally required to be revealed. M. Bar R. 3.7(b). Second, the State has an obligation to ensure a fair trial. State v. Hinds, 485 A.2d 231, 235 (Me.1984). The prosecutor here told the justice that David Willoughby's testimony about the disposition of the lottery tickets may vary in some small detail but [is] basically consistent with what Mr. Glidden is to testify about. A comparison of Willoughby's testimony with the subsequent trial testimony of Glidden reveals that, according to both, the lottery tickets were disposed of in Brunswick, where they drove in Glidden's car. Their accounts only differ as to the date on which the drive to Brunswick occurred. We agree with the State that the difference of one day constitutes a variation in some small detail, and that David's testimony and Glidden's were basically consistent. Accordingly, we find no merit to the defendant's argument that the prosecutor misrepresented Glidden's testimony.