State v. Dolloff
| Decision Date | 27 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. Cum–11–46. |
| Citation | 2012 ME 130,58 A.3d 1032 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Linda DOLLOFF. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Verne E. Paradie, Jr., Esq. (orally), Trafton & Matzen, LLP, Auburn, for appellant Linda Dolloff.
Stephanie Anderson, District Attorney, and Anne Berlind (orally), Asst. Dist. Arty., Prosecutorial District No. Two, Portland, for appellee State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
[¶ 1] Jeffrey Dolloff was bludgeoned, nearly to death, in his own bed during the early hours of April 12, 2009. The weapon used to inflict the injuries was determined to be his own softball bat. Linda Dolloff, Jeffrey's estranged wife who was still living in their home, became the focus of the investigation into the assault. Following a jury trial, Linda was found guilty of attempted murder along with two related crimes. Linda now appeals from those judgments of conviction, entered by the trial court ( Wheeler, J.) upon the jury's verdict finding her guilty of attempted murder (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 152(1)(A) (2011); see17–A M.R.S. § 201 (2011), elevated aggravated assault (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 208–B(1)(A), (2) (2011), and false public alarm or report (Class D), 17–A M.R.S. § 509(1)(A), (2) (2011). We affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] Linda asserts that the trial court made several evidentiary errors and that improper statements made by the prosecutor during the trial constituted prosecutorial misconduct that deprived her of a fair trial. We conclude that no evidentiary errors occurred and focus much of our discussion on Linda's assertions of prosecutorial misconduct.1
[¶ 3] The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, rationally support the verdict. See State v. Haag, 2012 ME 94, ¶¶ 2, 17, 48 A.3d 207.
[¶ 4] Jeffrey and Linda Dolloff were married in 1998 and resided together in a home in Standish on Dolloff Road near the homes of other members of Jeffrey's family. They had both put extensive time and effort into building their home. Jeffrey had three daughters from a prior marriage. He often spent four to five nights a week away from home working as a consultant. Jeffrey owned approximately twenty-four guns that he kept in the home. He taught his daughters and Linda how to handle firearms. Linda taught yoga classes and was writing a murder-mystery novel. The marriage was a rocky one, and the couple had discussed divorcing on multiple occasions. At the time of the assault, they were maintaining separate bedrooms.
[¶ 5] Approximately two weeks before the April 12, 2009, incident, Jeffrey and Linda reached an agreement to separate. The agreement provided that Jeffrey would pay Linda a lump sum of money, that Linda would live in an apartment attached to their home for one year, that during this year Jeffrey would pay Linda's bills and expenses incurred from “groceries [and] vehicles,” and that Linda would receive half of the ownership rights to the two properties that they jointly owned. Jeffrey believed that Linda agreed to the separation because she hoped that, after a few months apart, they would eventually reconcile. Nonetheless, Jeffrey told Linda he intended to bring a girlfriend home to meet his family during an upcoming weekend.
[¶ 6] In the early morning hours of April 12, 2009, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Linda placed a call to 911 to report that there was an intruder in her home, that she had been shot, and that her husband had been seriously injured. Officers were immediately dispatched to the scene.
[¶ 7] The first two officers to arrive approached the home with their weapons drawn. One of the officers reported to dispatch that he saw a person move in a window on the first floor. Linda's call was still connected to 911 when the officers arrived, although there were minutes when it sounded as if she had set the phone down and walked away from it. The officers instructed dispatch to tell Linda to turn on the lights and to come out the front door. At some point, Linda returned to her phone, and shortly thereafter, she stumbled out of the house, falling face-first onto the porch. Jeffrey and Linda's dog, Zoe, ran out the front door as Linda exited. Linda was visibly upset and crying, and she was bleeding from a gunshot wound above her right hip.
[¶ 8] The officers proceeded into the home and found empty bullet casings on the steps leading up to the second floor, a gun at the top of the stairs, and Jeffrey lying on the bed in his room, covered in blood. A softball bat, the weapon used to inflict Jeffrey's injuries, was found near his bed. It was covered in blood and had been partially burned.
[¶ 9] While emergency personnel attended to Jeffrey, officers searched the home and did not find anyone else present. Officers then used a dog to search within the perimeter of the property, which included multiple structures. The dog picked up two scent tracks. The first track ran between the garage door and the Dolloffs' vehicles parked on the driveway. The second, older scent track ran across a field that led to a residence owned by Jeffrey's brother. Officers also found that the home's kitchen drawers had been pulled open, and the glove compartments of the Dolloffs' vehicles had been opened. An envelope containing $1,500 in cash, which had been in a drawer in Jeffrey's bedroom, was left on the floor of the bedroom. The gun used to shoot Linda had been taken from the same drawer. Officers discovered Jeffrey's wallet, with a substantial amount of cash in it, on the bedroom floor at the foot of the bed near the bureau. Jeffrey's adult daughter and her boyfriend, who lived in an apartment attached to the Dolloffs' home, did not hear anything until police arrived and knocked on their window.
[¶ 10] Jeffrey and Linda were both transported to Maine Medical Center. Jeffrey sustained life-threatening injuries that included multiple skull fractures and a fractured nose. Many of his teeth had been knocked out. Later, it was determined that Jeffrey's injuries were caused by blunt force trauma from at least three blows to his head while he was lying on his pillow. Jeffrey spent over a week at Maine Medical Center, three weeks at a clinic in Massachusetts, and additional time at a rehabilitation hospital in Portland. He will never fully recover from his injuries and has no memory of the events that occurred on the night of the assault.
[¶ 11] Linda's injuries were not life-threatening. She sustained a bullet wound to an area above her hip bone that did not affect any vital organs. Jeffrey's blood was found on her clothing and the soles of her feet. Investigators discovered Linda's DNA, along with other unidentified DNA, on a swab taken from the bat that was used to assault Jeffrey.2 Linda's DNA was not found on a swab taken from the trigger of the gun that was used to fire the shot into her abdomen, although it was found on swabs taken elsewhere on the gun. Investigators also discovered DNA from a male on the swab taken from the trigger, but the amount recovered proved insufficient to compare with known individual DNA samples.
[¶ 12] The parties stipulated to a statement given by Detective Scott Gosselin of the Maine State Police, which the court read into evidence. The stipulation contained conclusions about the nature of the assault, which were based on an analysis of blood stains at the scene, the weapons involved, the medical examiner's report, forensic chemistry and DNA reports, and Linda's statements to police. The stipulation also included an agreement that the blood spatter and DNA evidence was inconclusive regarding Linda's role in the assault.
[¶ 13] On July 10, 2009, Linda was indicted for the attempted murder of Jeffrey Dolloff, along with charges of elevated aggravated assault and false public alarm or report. Linda pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. Over the course of fifteen days, she was tried before a jury. She was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
[¶ 14] The State's theory at trial was that Linda intended to murder Jeffrey in order to keep all of the property and the lifestyle that she had grown accustomed to. The prosecutor told the jury that the evidence would support that theory and would show that Linda intended to kill Jeffrey with the bat and that she shot herself to make the assault look like a home invasion. Linda asserted that she and Jeffrey were both victims of a home invasion.
[¶ 15] Before trial, the court denied the State's motion in limine seeking to offer certain evidence regarding Linda's prior cosmetic surgeries. The court also addressed the State's motion in limine seeking to offer, among other things, specific evidence of Linda's prior strained relationship with Jeffrey's daughters. Linda objected. During a chambers conference, the court ruled that the particular instances cited in the State's motion would not be allowed in evidence because most of the information was “too old and too prejudicial to be probative as ... character evidence.” However, the court noted that what happened during the week before the 2009 incident was more relevant than what may have happened earlier in Jeffrey and Linda's relationship, leaving further rulings for trial.
[¶ 16] During the trial, both sides presented witnesses and exhibits, including a tape recording of the 911 call. The jury was taken to the Dolloffs' home in Standish to view the scene of the assault. The State presented the testimony of the officers who responded to Linda's 911 call, other officers who were at the scene, a dispatcher, police investigators, crime lab technicians, Jeffrey Dolloff, and members of Jeffrey's family, among others. Linda presented the testimony of a private investigator and the State Medical Examiner.
[¶ 17] When asked about the softball bat found in his room after the attack, Jeffrey testified that he had owned the bat since 197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wai Chan
...that statement will rarely be found to have created a reasonable probability that it affected the outcome of the proceeding." State v. Dolloff , 2012 ME 130, ¶ 38, 58 A.3d 1032. [¶25] "Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant or suggesting that the defendant must present evidence in a ......
-
State v. White
...these biases in our justice system," and "instruct[ing] our trial courts to be proactive about addressing implicit bias"); State v. Dolloff , 2012 ME 130, ¶ 40, 58 A.3d 1032 ("Although the prosecutor is responsible for the unflinching and assertive efforts to prosecute those who are alleged......
-
State v. Carrillo
...was willful or inadvertent), the weight of the evidence supporting the verdict, jury instructions, and curative instructions." State v. Dolloff , 2012 ME 130, ¶ 33, 58 A.3d 1032 (quotation marks omitted). Because of its significant effect on the proceedings, "[a] motion for a mistrial shoul......
-
McGinn v. State
...state courts also allocate the burden to the prosecution to show that nonconstitutional error was harmless. See, e.g., State v. Dolloff,58 A.3d 1032, 1043 (Me.2012)(The State must persuade us that “it is highly probable that the jury's determination of guilt was unaffected by the prosecutor......