Opinion ID: 1986204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure of the State to Disclose HIV Status

Text: Finally, the defendant claims that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the State's failure to disclose evidence tending to create reasonable doubt as to his guilt. After the trial, the defendant discovered, through the presentence investigative report, that the victim had tested negative for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Although this evidence was available before the trial, the State did not disclose it to him. The defendant had previously tested positive for the virus. The defendant moved pursuant to M.R.Crim.P. 16(d) for a dismissal of the indictment or for a new trial. Automatic discovery under M.R.Crim.P. 16(a) compels the attorney for the State to furnish to the defendant any statement describing any matter or information known to the attorney for the state which may not be known to the defendant and which tends to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt as to the offense charged. At the motion hearing, the court heard the testimony of Dr. Owen Pickus, an expert in the field of HIV and AIDS. He indicated that there is no predictability or no predictive value of using an HIV test as a mechanism to determine whether someone had sexual intercourse with someone or not. The trial court opined: [A]lthough certain factors may make infection more likely, the doctor could put no statistical number on those factors. Moreover, the risk of infection drops dramatically where there has been no ejaculation.... Assuming a single episode of intercourse, where no condom is used, there is full penetration, and no ejaculation occurs, the doctor's opinion as to what could be concluded from the failure of the initially HIV-free female to test positive after the alleged assault was absolutely nothing. Because the trial court could conclude that the HIV test had no predictive value of whether sexual intercourse did occur, the victim's HIV test did not tend to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. M.R.Crim.P. 16(a). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to dismiss the indictment or grant a new trial [4] as a sanction for the State's discovery violation. See State v. Pelletier, 594 A.2d 1095, 1097 (Me.1991). The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.