Opinion ID: 4527425
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial and Convictions

Text: [¶2] On November 25, 2014, Watson was indicted on two counts of gross sexual assault (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C) (2018), one count of unlawful sexual contact (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(F-1) (2018), and one count of visual sexual aggression against a child (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 256(1)(B) (2018). [¶3] A two-day jury trial was held in July 2015.1 To begin the trial, the State called the victim, who testified that she was born in 2003 and that the defendant was her biological father. The victim recounted two instances of sexual abuse that occurred during the summer of 2014, when she was ten years old. According to the victim’s testimony, Watson told her that he would buy her a cell phone if she engaged in certain sexual activity with him; she agreed because she wanted a phone. The victim testified that the first incident occurred on August 4, 2014, and Watson bought her a phone the following day. The victim testified that a second incident occurred later that summer, and that both incidents took place in Watson’s home. She also testified that he showed her pornographic videos and showed her how to use sex toys. 1 We summarized the facts in State v. Watson, 2016 ME 176, ¶¶ 2-8, 152 A.3d 152. 3 [¶4] The State also introduced testimony from the victim’s mother, grandmother, and aunt, all of whom testified that the victim made disclosures to them following the sexual abuse.2 The victim’s grandmother and aunt both testified that the victim had feelings of guilt following the abuse.3 On the first day of trial, the State also called the nurse practitioner who performed a physical examination on the victim after she reported the abuse. The nurse practitioner testified without objection that the physical examination of the victim was normal, but explained that “[i]t’s actually the norm to have a normal exam in this type of situation.” On cross-examination, she testified that there were no signs of trauma. A Maine State Police trooper testified as the State’s final witness in its case in chief on the second day of trial. He testified that he assisted in the execution of a search warrant of Watson’s house and seized pornographic DVDs, sex toys, and two computers. 2 The victim’s aunt was permitted to testify under the “first complaint rule” that the victim made a disclosure to her. See id. ¶ 4; see also State v. Fahnley, 2015 ME 82, ¶¶ 19-26, 119 A.3d 727. The victim’s grandmother and mother did not testify as to the contents of the victim’s disclosures. 3 At trial, Watson objected to the testimony that the victim was “feeling guilty.” As we explained in State v. Watson, the victim's statements to her aunt and grandmother about her feelings of guilt were admissible under the hearsay exception for a declarant’s then-existing state of mind. 2016 ME 176, ¶¶ 11-12, 152 A.3d 152; see M.R. Evid. 803(3). 4 [¶5] Watson’s defense counsel presented five witnesses, including Watson and a Maine State Police detective. The detective testified that the computers seized from Watson’s house were never searched. [¶6] Watson denied the allegations that he bought the victim the phone because she agreed to allow him to try to have sex with her. He testified that he purchased the cell phone at the same time he took the victim back-to-school shopping in August 2014. Watson and his former girlfriend both testified that they had sex toys that Watson kept in his bedroom, but Watson denied ever showing the sex toys to the victim. Likewise, he testified that he never kissed the victim, showed her pornography on his laptop, asked her to use sex toys, or otherwise tried to engage in sexual activity with her. [¶7] After Watson testified, and just prior to resting his case, Watson’s attorney offered into evidence without objection the video recording of the victim’s September 2014 police interview with a female detective. The following exchange took place: DEFENSE COUNSEL: Nothing further. I think we’re gonna play the video now of [the detective’s] interview with [the victim] last September. THE COURT: And that's agreed to come into evidence? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes. ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: That’s fine. ... THE COURT: Is that cued up? 5 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Dim the lights. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 2, a video recording, was played at 1:20 p.m. and was concluded at 1:51 p.m.) DEFENSE COUNSEL: The defense rests, Your Honor. Defense counsel did not provide the jury with any context for the video interview before or after it was played. [¶8] The video showed the victim describing, consistent with her testimony at trial, the two incidents of sexual abuse that occurred. In addition to a recitation of the facts by the victim, the detective was shown telling the victim that she had done the right thing by reporting the incidents, that “the grownups” would make sure the victim was safe, and that Watson should have known better. The victim can be seen and heard on the video stating, “So, I won’t get taken away from my grandparents?” Defense counsel introduced a transcript of the video interview after the video was played for the jury, which was admitted into evidence without objection and given to the jurors when they retired for deliberations. [¶9] The attorneys presented closing arguments to the jury shortly after the video was played. The State proffered to the jury that “the heart of the case is what [the victim] told you.” In deciding whose testimony to believe, the ADA suggested that the jury ask questions like “Who’s telling the truth? Who’s bein’ 6 accurate? Who are you gonna rely on?” In his closing statement, defense counsel agreed with the ADA that the victim’s credibility is “the heart of this case.” There was no corroborative evidence of the abuse in the form of medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or DNA or forensic evidence. [¶10] The jury found Watson guilty on all four counts, and the trial court (Penobscot County, Lucy, J.) entered judgments of conviction. Watson was sentenced to twenty-seven years’ imprisonment followed by twenty years of supervised release for each of the convictions for gross sexual assault. He was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for the conviction for unlawful sexual contact and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the conviction for visual sexual aggression, all to run concurrently with the convictions for gross sexual assault. Watson appealed his convictions to this Court, and we affirmed the judgment. See State v. Watson, 2016 ME 176, 152 A.3d 152.