Opinion ID: 1470596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claimed Errors in the Admission or Exclusion of Evidence

Text: [¶ 20] Roberts raises several arguments with respect to the trial court's admission or exclusion of certain evidence. Under the rules of evidence, [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible. M.R. Evid. 402. All 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 and should be admissible into evidence within judicial discretion unless excluded by some rule or principle of law. State v. Allen, 2006 ME 20, ¶ 18, 892 A.2d 447, 453 (quotation marks omitted). Relevant evidence may be excluded, however, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. M.R. Evid. 403. [¶ 21] Where a party has preserved an objection admitting or excluding evidence, this Court reviews the trial court's determination regarding relevance for clear error, State v. Buchanan, 2007 ME 58, ¶ 8, 921 A.2d 159, 162, and its weighing of the probative value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice for an abuse of discretion, State v. Hamel, 2007 ME 18, ¶ 6, 913 A.2d 1287, 1289. Where the claimed error is unpreserved, we review the trial court's decision under an obvious error standard, requiring either a determination or an assumption that an error was made, and then a determination as to whether the error was obvious and affected substantial rights. State v. Snow, 2007 ME 26, ¶ 11, 916 A.2d 957, 961 (quotation marks omitted). An unpreserved error is obvious when it deprives a party of a fair trial or results in such a serious injustice that the Court cannot, in good conscience, allow the judgment to stand. Id. [¶ 22] Roberts contends that the court erred with respect to: (1) the admission of evidence regarding vandalism to Mendoza's and Destrini's vehicles; (2) the admission of photographs of Mendoza and the daughter; (3) the admission of a protection from abuse affidavit filed by Mendoza on August 8, 2005; and (4) the exclusion of the testimony of two witnesses regarding statements made to each by another defense witness. We examine each of these contentions in turn.
[¶ 23] Although the State did not contend that Roberts personally committed the vandalism to the cars that preceded the murder, the State called two witnesses to testify to their observations of a person, admittedly not Roberts, slashing Mendoza's tires on July 1, 2005; a police officer to testify to the incident on August 8, 2005, in which Mendoza's windshield was smashed; and Dawn Destrini to testify regarding the slashing of the tires on her vehicles on August 9, 2005. None of the witnesses identified the perpetrator or perpetrators of these acts. [¶ 24] Prior to the State's first witness, Roberts objected to the admission of any testimony regarding the vandalism. Roberts argued that the jury would impermissibly attribute these acts to him despite the lack of evidence linking him to the vandalism and would therefore use the testimony as improper character evidence prohibited by M.R. Evid. 404(b). [3] The State argued that the testimony should be admitted to explain the sequence of events leading to Mendoza having visits with the daughter at Roberts's home, and to respond to Roberts's portrayal of Mendoza in his opening statement as paranoid and out of control. The court ultimately allowed the testimony, finding that the probative value of the vandalism evidence was to explain Mendoza's conduct and the sequence of events leading to Mendoza's death, which outweighed any danger that the acts would be improperly attributed to Roberts. The court specifically ruled that the State could not attribute the vandalism to Roberts as prior bad acts. [¶ 25] We conclude that the court's decision to admit this evidence was within the proper bounds of the discretion afforded by M.R. Evid. 403. [4] First, as the trial court reasoned, the vandalism evidence explained, from [Mendoza's] point of view, why she's taking certain steps, why she misses the visitation, why it's late, . . . [and] why visitation is changed from the Destrinis' [house] to his house. Second, the State did not assert that Roberts committed the acts of vandalism, and Roberts elicited testimony on cross-examination to establish that he had not committed these acts. In its ruling on the admission of the evidence, the trial court was explicit that none of it can be used to show prior bad acts on the part of Mr. Roberts. Accordingly, the evidence does not fall under M.R. Evid. 404(b)'s proscription against bad character evidence. Finally, although an instruction limiting the jury's use of this evidence for the purpose of understanding the sequence of events surrounding Mendoza's death may have been appropriate, none was requested. See State v. Cloutier, 1997 ME 96, ¶ 14, 695 A.2d 550, 555. [¶ 26] Under the circumstances, the court's application of M.R. Evid. 403 and its decision to admit the vandalism evidence to explain Mendoza's conduct and to establish the circumstances giving rise to Mendoza's appearance at Roberts's residence during the early morning hours of August 15, 2005, was not an abuse of discretion.
[¶ 27] Roberts argues that the court erred in admitting, over his objection, two photographs of Mendoza and their daughter in which they are kissing and smiling. The photographs were initially shown to witnesses by the State only for identification purposes. However, after Roberts played a recording of his 911 call to the jury, the State argued that the photographs should be admitted into evidence to rebut Roberts's statements in this recording that Mendoza had threatened to kill the daughter. Roberts argues that the photographs were irrelevant to the issues at trial and were unfairly prejudicial because they were likely to elicit an improper emotional response from the jury. [¶ 28] We have previously provided that photographs are admissible if they are (1) accurate depictions; (2) relevant; and (3) if their probative value is not outweighed by any tendency toward unfair prejudice. State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 10, 892 A.2d 456, 459. A photograph may be unfairly prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to move the tribunal to decide on an improper basis, commonly, though not always, an emotional one. Id. ¶ 13, 892 A.2d at 460 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 29] The first two criteria are easily met. Roberts concedes that the photographs are an accurate depiction of Mendoza and their daughter. With regard to relevance, the State argues that it offered the photographs  which depict the mother and child as having a loving relationship  to rebut Roberts's claim that he believed Mendoza was going to kill their daughter. Roberts's belief on this point was relevant at trial because of his theory of the case, and accordingly we discern no error in the trial court's conclusion that the photographs tended to establish a consequential fact. See M.R. Evid. 401. [¶ 30] With respect to the third criterion, although the photographs were of such a nature as to possibly evoke an emotional response by the jury, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's conclusion that the probative value of the photographs outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. There was other evidence admitted at trial establishing the caring relationship between Mendoza and the daughter, including Destrini's testimony that Mendoza was very good to the daughter and they were happy together and a recording of the daughter upset and crying when Mendoza left her on August 14 after their visit. Because of the cumulative nature of the evidence of Mendoza and the daughter's relationship, most of which Roberts did not object to, it is unlikely that the photographs moved the jury to decide the case on an emotional basis.
[¶ 31] During the trial, the jury heard testimony that Mendoza had filed a number of protection from abuse complaints against Roberts during their relationship, including a video recording of Roberts's testimony from a child protective hearing regarding these complaints. Roberts offered, and the court admitted, a protection from abuse complaint and related paperwork filed by Mendoza in June 2005 against Roberts. [5] Included in this exhibit was Mendoza's affidavit in support of the complaint alleging that Roberts had hit me, kicked me, punched me, strangled me and put a gun to my head. The State then offered, and the court admitted without objection, Mendoza's complaint for protection from abuse and supporting affidavit filed in August 2005. The affidavit contained allegations that Roberts had put a gun to [Mendoza's] head numerous times and that she was afraid he or one of his friends would hurt her. [¶ 32] The complaints and affidavits were admitted after a conference with the court in which Roberts argued that because the protection from abuse complaints had been referred to in testimony, the June 2005 complaint and related proceedings should be admitted as an exhibit. The State argued that, in the interest of completeness, the August 2005 complaint should also be admitted. Roberts agreed to the admission of the August complaint and related paperwork, and the court subsequently admitted both complaints and related paperwork. [6] [¶ 33] With respect to the protection from abuse complaints and affidavits, the court instructed the jury: [T]he allegations [in the complaints and affidavits] are not evidence of anything. It is simply  again, those are simply to indicate that she did file a complaint for protection from abuse, and you put on whatever weight you choose as . . . the finders of fact to place on that. But you cannot consider the allegations that appear in the 2005 complaint as evidence of anything. They're simply allegations. They've never been proven and they have no . . . evidentiary concern. They're not to be considered by you when you assess the evidence. Although he did not object at trial, Roberts now contends that the court committed obvious error in admitting Mendoza's August 2005 protection from abuse affidavit because it violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights and contained allegations so prejudicial as to constitute manifest injustice. [¶ 34] Contrary to Roberts's contention, admission of the August protection from abuse affidavit did not implicate Roberts's Confrontation Clause rights because Mendoza's statements contained therein were not offered for their truth. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that [t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. The trial court's instruction to the jury establishes that the affidavit was not admitted for the truth of the matters asserted in it. [¶ 35] Nor can we conclude that admission of the protection from abuse affidavit was so prejudicial as to constitute error, much less obvious error, under the facts of this case. Roberts himself introduced, as an exhibit, the protection from abuse affidavit filed in June 2005 that contained allegations similar to those contained in the August affidavit, along with subsequent documents filed by Mendoza indicating that she no longer wished to proceed with the complaint. The State therefore sought admission of the August complaint and affidavit to give the jury a complete picture of the history of the protection from abuse proceedings between Mendoza and Roberts throughout their relationship. Because the jury was instructed that it was not to consider the allegations for their truth, and because the affidavit was offered for reasons other than showing Roberts's alleged bad character, we find no obvious error in the admission of the August 2005 protection from abuse affidavit.
[¶ 36] Roberts called Jaime Bolduc, a friend of Roberts's family for almost twenty years, who testified that Mendoza had stated shortly before her death that if Mendoza had a gun, she would shoot Roberts. Bolduc testified that she did not initially tell police of this statement because she felt she would have been betraying her friendship with Mendoza, but did eventually inform police of the statement in November 2005. [¶ 37] In its cross-examination of Bolduc, the State sought to raise the inference that Bolduc had fabricated Mendoza's statement to protect Roberts from being arrested and prosecuted for murder. In an effort to rebut the State's charge of fabrication, Roberts sought to elicit the testimony of Michelle Booth and Jeri Wade that Bolduc had repeated the statement to both witnesses prior to her interview with police in November 2005, but after Mendoza's death. The State objected, arguing that Bolduc's motive to fabricate the statement arose at the time of Mendoza's death, and that her statements to both witnesses were therefore inadmissible pursuant to M.R. Evid. 801(d)(1). The court agreed, excluding the testimony. [¶ 38] Maine Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1) provides that [a] prior consistent statement by the declarant, whether or not under oath, is admissible only to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. The proponent of such a prior consistent statement has the burden of establishing that the statement was (1) consistent with the in-court statement of the witness, (2) offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence, and (3) made prior to the time the supposed motive to falsify arose. State v. Weisbrode, 653 A.2d 411, 415 (Me.1995). The trial court is accorded discretion in its determination of when the motive to fabricate arose. Id. [¶ 39] In the present case, the court found that Roberts failed to establish that Bolduc's motive to fabricate Mendoza's statement  her desire to protect Roberts  arose at any time other than at the time of the shooting. This finding is not clearly erroneous as Bolduc herself testified that she had been a friend of Roberts's family for almost twenty years and had only recently become close to Mendoza at the time of Mendoza's death. Because the court found that Bolduc's statements to both Booth and Wade occurred after the motive to falsify arose, the statements do not qualify as prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1). Accordingly, we find no error in the court's exclusion of Booth's and Wade's testimony.