Court Opinion

ID: 9714685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:42:57.064694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:27.827827
License: Public Domain

GLASSMAN, Justice,
with whom VIOL-ETTE, Active Retired Justice, joins, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Because evidence of satanism and Scott Waterhouse’s belief therein had little or no probative value in terms of the issues before the trier of fact, its admission was so unfairly prejudicial as to constitute obvious error.
It would be difficult to conceive of any evidence in a criminal proceeding more inflammatory than evidence of the defendant’s belief in satanism. In the instant case the highly prejudicial effect of this evidence was heightened by the manner in which some of the evidence was presented: the playing of a tape recording of a conversation between Waterhouse and police officers in which Waterhouse discussed his beliefs.
Because Waterhouse did not object to admission of the evidence, its admission is reviewed under the obvious error standard of M.R.Evid. 103(d). On the facts of this case I find obvious error affecting Water-house’s substantial rights.
The State contends, and the court holds, that the evidence of satanism and Water-house’s belief therein is relevant for the permissible purpose of proving motive. I disagree. Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(A) (1983). Evidence of motivation may be relevant when, as here, the identity of the killer is in question. See McCormick, Law of Evidence § 190 at 450-51 (E. Cleary 2d ed. 1972) (evidence of motive serves as evidence of identity). Here, however, the evidence of satanism that was admitted did not establish any motive for the crime and was therefore irrelevant on the issue of identity. First, the evidence disclosed that satanism, as professed by Waterhouse, did not espouse the taking of human life, and advocated the use of violence only in self-defense. Since there is no evidence that the victim had attacked, injured or even offended Waterhouse, the evidence of satanism tended, if anything, to negate motivation. Second, the contention that Waterhouse as a believer in satanism might view commission of the heinous crime involved in this case as a means of achieving personal gratification or of dem*866onstrating his strength by domination of a weaker person amounts to a contention that Waterhouse is a self-indulgent person who scoffs at ethical and societal prohibitions against killing. The contention is in short that Waterhouse has acted in conformity with his character: because Water-house is a bad man, he has committed a crime. See State v. Conlogue, 474 A.2d 167, 172 (Me.1984), quoting R. Field & P. Murray, Maine Evidence § 406.1 at 75 (1976) (character is a “generalized description of one’s disposition, or of one’s disposition in respect to a general trait, such as honesty, temperance, or peacefulness”). Because the evidence of satanism and Wa-terhouse’s belief therein is not relevant to show motive, it is not admissible for that purpose. M.R.Evid. 402.
The State contends, and the court holds, that the evidence was relevant on an alternative basis: the showing of intent. The court states that “the consistency between the circumstances of the crime and satan-ismos emphasis on sex, destruction and denigration of weakness, makes it more likely that if defendant killed the victim, he did so intentionally rather than by accident.” This purported relevancy, however, is theoretical and disappears when we examine the facts of this case. Waterhouse has not contended that the killing was not intentional, nor is there evidence to support a finding of an unintentional killing. The critical question before the jury was the identity of the killer. Thus the evidence of satanism was not relevant to the real issues in the case. The fact that Water-house told the police he could not intentionally kill anyone does not change this analysis. This statement when examined in context amounts to a profession of innocence rather than a contention that Waterhouse had killed the victim, but did so unintentionally. Moreover, the State introduced this statement in its case in chief. The State should not be permitted to introduce evidence negating the defendant’s intent and then to introduce inflammatory evidence to repair the damage done to its own case.
Weighing the inflammatory impact of the evidence of satanism against its minimal, if any, relevance in this case, I find that its admission was “so highly prejudicial and so taint[ed] the proceeding as virtually to deprive the [defendant] of a fair trial.” State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 468 (Me.1981), quoting State v. Langley, 242 A.2d 688, 690 (Me.1968). Accordingly, I would vacate the conviction.