Opinion ID: 2801765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violette’s Video Deposition

Text: [¶18] Pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 26(c), “A party who has rested a case cannot thereafter produce further evidence except in rebuttal unless by leave of court.” We review a “court’s ruling on a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Holland, 2012 ME 2, ¶ 31, 34 A.3d 1130. However, because Tucker did not object at trial to the admission of the video deposition, his challenge is not preserved and therefore the court’s decision is reviewed for obvious error affecting his substantial rights. State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108, ¶ 35, 830 A.2d 433. 10 [¶19] Tucker argues that (1) Violette’s testimony was irrelevant and only confused the jury; (2) Violette was a lay witness and not an expert witness; and (3) the State’s failure to present the testimony before it rested was not merely a simple oversight. Tucker additionally argues that the court’s ruling admitting the testimony was not harmless because the State relied heavily on the testimony to attack Tucker’s credibility, which was one of the central issues in the case. [¶20] A court weighs several factors in ruling on a motion to reopen, including “(1) the potential prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the probative value of the proffered evidence, and (3) the moving party’s excuse for the untimeliness of its offer.” Holland, 2012 ME 2, ¶ 31, 34 A.3d 1130 (quotation marks omitted). The court addressed each of these three factors on the record and determined that the State would be allowed to reopen its case because the video testimony was (1) not prejudicial to Tucker because both sides anticipated that the video would be shown to the jury and the State referred to it in its opening statement, (2) probative because it was relevant to Tucker's work capacity, and (3) initially omitted through a simple and excusable oversight. Additionally, the defense did not object to the State’s original motion for deposition or motion in limine, nor did it object at trial to the State reopening its case. The record supports the court’s determination; there is no obvious error. 11 The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Heather Gonzales, Esq., Strike, Goodwin & O’Brien, Portland, for appellant Stephen J. Tucker Sr. Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Leanne Robbin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine At oral argument: Heather Gonzales, Esq., for appellant Stephen J. Tucker Sr. Leanne Robbin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State of Maine Aroostook County (Houlton) Superior Court docket number CR-2012-86 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY