Opinion ID: 2074417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Obvious Error Analysis

Text: [¶ 11] We next consider whether, from our review of the record, the error associated with the verdict form is obvious in that it worked a substantial injustice or affected McNally's substantial rights. Obvious error analysis requires us to grant relief where the error is so highly prejudicial and so taints the proceedings as to virtually deprive the defendant of a fair trial. State v. Kirk, 2005 ME 60, ¶ 3, 873 A.2d 350, 351 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 12] The verdict form was a prominent aspect of the court's instructions to the jury. Each juror received a copy of the verdict form and had it in hand as the court emphasized its helpfulness, describing it as a tool to assist them in their analytical choices. This emphasis on the importance of the form in the decision-making process, coupled with the fact that it was the first and last document the jury interacted with after the close of the evidence, makes it likely that the jury considered and relied on the language contained in the form in reaching its verdicts. See State v. Cote, 462 A.2d 487, 490 (Me.1983). [¶ 13] In addition, considering the court's verbal instructions, written instructions, and the verdict form as a whole, a jury could reasonably be confused by the conflicting statements regarding the burden of proof. Although the jury heard the correct standard in the verbal instructions, the only written guidance they received on this fundamental point was that contained in the verdict form. We must infer that the jurors understood that the standard contained in the verdict form was a correct statement of the law, and that they would have resolved any uncertainty arising from the conflict between the verbal instructions and the verdict form in favor of the written language in the form. See State v. Lebreton, 364 A.2d 645, 648 (Me.1976). [¶ 14] The law is highly solicitous of the reasonable doubt standard because it is of paramount importance in guaranteeing the protection of due process in the administration of criminal justice. See State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108, ¶ 44 n. 4, 830 A.2d 433, 448; see also 17-A M.R.S. § 32 (2006). Because the verdict form used in this case created a serious potential for juror misunderstanding regarding the reasonable doubt standard and McNally's right to be presumed innocent, we treat the error as obvious and vacate his conviction. [1] The entry is: Judgment vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. SILVER, J., concurring. [¶ 15] I concur in the Court's decision, but I am writing separately to address McNally's argument that the trial court improperly diverged from its role as an impartial arbiter when it alerted the State to a possible avenue of impeachment of McNally's credibility, and allowed the State's motion to reopen its rebuttal case to tender the evidence. [¶ 16] The morning following the close of evidence, the trial court called counsel into chambers to discuss a discrepancy the court observed between McNally's testimony and his indigency affidavit: I called to the attention of both lawyers the fact that after hearing yesterday's testimony, particularly with regard to whether Mr. McNally was owed money by Mr. Brackett and having previously been informed that Mr. Sylvester was court appointed, the wheels began to turn in my brain as to how one might qualify for court-appointed counsel if in fact somebody else owed them $10,000, which is what I understand the general substance of that testimony to be. In fact, McNally did testify that he lent Brackett money, but he also testified that he did not expect to be reimbursed because Brackett said he would never repay McNally. Brackett corroborated this by testifying at trial that he had no intention of ever repaying his debt to McNally. [¶ 17] The State subsequently requested to reopen its rebuttal case in order to use the information on the affidavit for impeachment purposes. [2] The trial court granted the motion over McNally's objections. [¶ 18] A trial court should not highlight discrepancies or supply trial strategy to any party. McNally's indigency status was not relevant to the ongoing trial proceedings. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, the court should have waited until the conclusion of the trial to address with counsel McNally's indigency status. The practical result of the court's action was to highlight the evidence that was then used to impeach McNally's credibility before the jury. [¶ 19] Although the court's concern with McNally's indigency status was appropriate in a general sense, the court's alerting of the State to this possible avenue of impeachment in the final stage of the trial created a substantial implication that the court was assisting the State. In my view, this creates an issue of fundamental fairness of a magnitude that I would vacate upon this basis alone.