Court Opinion

ID: 9629768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:48:41.718837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:23.400357
License: Public Domain

WEATHERBEE, Justice
(dissenting)
In my opinion the Defendant’s counsel was entitled on cross-examination to explore any reasonable possibilities of impairment of the witness’ capacity for clear observation and accurate recollection of the crucial events of the evening. Although we cannot take judicial notice that the use of any quantity of marijuana — or alcohol —adversely affects observation or recollection in every individual, the hallucinogenic qualities of the drug are very well known.
We recognized these qualities in State v. Cedre, Me, 314 A.2d 790 (1974) where we held that evidence of addiction was not admissible to prove inherent unreliability, but agreed with the statement of the Supreme Court of Alaska that
“Where evidence of addiction tends to show that the witness was under the influence of narcotics either at the time of trial or at the time of the occurrence to which he testifies, where the evidence proves that his ability to perceive, remember, and testify are substantially affected by his habit, or where such evidence would be independently admissible under some other theory, it should not be excluded.” Fields v. State, Alas, 487 P. 2d 831 (1971).
If another person’s testimony that a witness’ awareness or perception appeared to be affected by the use of drugs would be admissible as bearing on the witness’ credibility, I can see no reason why counsel should not be permitted to make similar inquiry of the witness herself in cross-examination. Pease v. Burrowes, 86 Me. 153, 29 A. 1053 (1893).
I feel certain that if the witness had answered the question and admitted the use of marijuana on that occasion, no one would argue that another question as to whether her ability to observe the events and recall them from her memory were affected by its use would be improper.
If the inquiry is, made in good faith, respectfully and reasonably, I do not believe the fact that the witness could possibly be offended by the question or even incriminated by her answer (if she chose to waive her Fifth Amendment rights) should affect its admissibility.
When he excluded the question in issue, the Justice had been made aware that marijuana was being smoked by some one or more of the young people at this evening camp party and that the witness’ own testimony was revealing some uncertainty of memory of the events which was of arguable significance. The witness herself had just acknowledged that she had been “drinking” at the party and that “there was marijuana being smoked at the party”. She had answered three of the five last previous questions by saying (twice) “I don’t remember that clearly” and (once) “I don’t remember that exactly.”/ T think the possibility that the witness herself was one of those smoking marijuana and that her ability to observe and recall may have been adversely affected was not at that point in the trial so remote and unreasonable as to justify barring the inquiry.
I think that the exclusion of the question was legal error, cannot be found to be harmless, and should require a new trial.