Opinion ID: 4526093
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Employee Procedure Manuals

Text: [¶16] Lindell also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting in evidence copies of procedural manuals produced by Revere for its contractors and signed by Lindell, which contained procedures that arguably prohibited the conduct that gave rise to Count 3 of the indictment, a knowing or intentional securities violation. Lindell objected to their admission at trial, arguing that they were inadmissible propensity evidence and likely to mislead the jury, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the manuals, accompanied by a limiting instruction.7 Lindell did not object to the language of the instruction, and therefore we review the instruction for obvious error. State v. Pratt, 2015 ME 167, ¶ 18, 130 A.3d 381. The court’s instruction correctly stated the law and relevant procedural posture in a thorough and 7 The trial court instructed the jury as follows regarding the purpose of admitting the manuals: Now, I want to make sure that you understand as jurors that it is not a criminal violation or against the law per se to violate some employment procedure. . . . And there’s no charge in the indictment that says he violated this procedure; therefore, that’s a crime. That’s not at play here. However, I am admitting the exhibit for whatever consideration you want to give it in deciding the issues that you do have to decide, which are the charges in the indictment itself. So I just want to make sure you understand . . . a violation of an employment procedure is not a crime. It’s not charged. That’s not why this is being admitted. But it is generally for your consideration. 11 clear manner. The record does not reveal any error in the instruction, obvious or otherwise. See id. Nor does the record demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in admitting the manuals for limited purposes, given the court’s broad discretion, Fox, 2017 ME 52, ¶ 29, 157 A.3d 778, and the obvious relevance of the evidence. See M.R. Evid. 401, 402.