Opinion ID: 2844015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-trial Procedure

Text: [¶8] In June 2012, Lowe was charged by indictment with two counts of manslaughter (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A); two counts of aggravated operating under the influence (Class B), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411 (1-A)(D)(1-A) (2014); and one count of aggravated leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2252(5).3 At arraignment, she pleaded not guilty. [¶9] Before trial, Lowe filed four motions in limine, one of which requested the exclusion of evidence “pertaining to Defendant’s impairment, operation under the influence, [and] use of alcohol or drugs.” Lowe also filed a motion for change 2 On October 31, 2013, we affirmed the trial court’s order suppressing an additional portion of the interview due to Edstrom’s failure to give Miranda warnings to Lowe. See State v. Lowe, 2013 ME 92, ¶¶ 11, 19, 26, 81 A.3d 360. 3 Although neither the OUI statute, 29-A M.R.S. § 2411 (1-A)(D)(1-A), nor the leaving the scene statute, 29-A M.R.S. § 2252(5), uses the term “aggravated” to describe that particular crime, we have done so in the past, see, e.g., State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9, ¶ 1, 10 A.3d 739 (aggravated OUI); State v. Cheney, 2012 ME 119, ¶ 1, 55 A.3d 473 (aggravated leaving the scene), and for convenience we do so here as well. 6 of venue because of pretrial publicity. After a hearing, the court denied all of the motions in limine and denied the motion for a change in venue without prejudice.