Opinion ID: 2295337
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scheid's Testimony

Text: [¶ 11] Mooney next contends that Scheid's testimony, concerning additional charges that could have been brought against Mooney had Brine been cooperative in his investigation, was not relevant and therefore inadmissible. We review a trial court's determination of relevance for clear error. State v. Dilley, 2008 ME 5, ¶ 25, 938 A.2d 804. [¶ 12] Relevant evidence is evidence that has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. M.R. Evid. 401. Thus, [a]ll facts which tend to prove or disprove the matter at issue or which constitute a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence with respect to the act charged are relevant. State v. Allen, 2006 ME 20, ¶ 18, 892 A.2d 447. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. M.R. Evid. 402. [¶ 13] Scheid testified that if Brine had cooperated with his investigation, he would have recommended that Mooney be charged with aggravated assault or elevated aggravated assault. This testimony did not tend to prove or disprove the charge that Mooney trafficked in prison contraband. See State v. Martin, 2007 ME 23, ¶ 10, 916 A.2d 961 (explaining that whether the defendant's act of speeding would have constituted a criminal or civil offense if the defendant had in fact been charged with speeding was not relevant in determining whether the defendant had operated his vehicle in a manner that constituted reckless conduct, aggravated assault, and driving to endanger). Accordingly, the trial court erred by admitting Scheid's irrelevant testimony in evidence. [5]