87 A.3d 1219 (Me. 2014), Aro-13-307, State v. Dube

Docket Nº:Aro-13-307
Citation:87 A.3d 1219, 2014 ME 43
Opinion Judge:GORMAN, J.
Party Name:STATE OF MAINE v. REGINALD DUBE
Attorney:Jon P. Plourde, Esq., Currier and Trask, P.A., Presque Isle, for appellant Reginald Dube. Todd R. Collins, District Attorney, and James G. Mitchell, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., 8th Prosecutorial District, Caribou, for appellee State of Maine. Jon P. Plourde, Esq. for appellant Reginald Dube. Todd R. ...
Judge Panel:Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
Case Date:March 18, 2014
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1219

87 A.3d 1219 (Me. 2014)

2014 ME 43

STATE OF MAINE

v.

REGINALD DUBE

No. Aro-13-307

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

March 18, 2014

Argued February 11, 2014.

Page 1220

Jon P. Plourde, Esq., Currier and Trask, P.A., Presque Isle, for appellant Reginald Dube.

Todd R. Collins, District Attorney, and James G. Mitchell, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., 8th Prosecutorial District, Caribou, for appellee State of Maine.

Jon P. Plourde, Esq. for appellant Reginald Dube.

Todd R. Collins, District Attorney, for appellee State of Maine.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.

OPINION

Page 1221

GORMAN, J.

[¶ 1] Reginald Dube appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and furnishing liquor to a minor. He contends that the Superior Court (Aroostook County, Hunter, J. ) erred in denying his motion in limine and motion to continue, allowing the State to participate in a pretrial hearing on those motions, and denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. He also contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Because we conclude that the trial court acted appropriately in its handling of motions filed on the eve of trial and did not abuse its discretion in denying those motions, and because the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] On September 8, 2011, Reginald Dube was indicted on two counts of gross sexual assault (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(2)(D) (2013); one count of unlawful sexual contact (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(D) (2013); and one count of furnishing liquor to a minor (Class D), 28-A M.R.S. § 2081(1)(A)(2) (2013), arising from allegations that on October 10 and December 3, 2010, Dube furnished alcohol to a sixteen-year-old minor and, when she passed out and was unable to resist, subjected her to sexual contact and engaged in sexual acts with her.

[¶ 3] After the case had been continued off four trial lists, a jury was finally chosen on December 5, 2012. On December 10, 2012, two days before the trial was to begin, counsel for Dube filed two motions: a motion to continue the trial and a motion in limine for production of protected documentary evidence pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 17(d).1 In the motion in limine, Dube's counsel explained that Dube had disclosed to him on December 7, 2012, that the victim had been involuntarily hospitalized at least four times before the alleged incidents, thereby " giving rise to a concern that information related to these hospitalizations may contain exculpatory evidence." Attached to the motion were subpoenae duces tecum directed to the Aroostook Mental Health Center and Northern Maine Medical Center, commanding representatives of those institutions to " permit inspection and copying" of " any and all files or records pertaining to the treatment and or hospitalization" of the victim prior to December 3, 2010.

[¶ 4] The court held a hearing on the motions the next day. Dube's counsel objected to the State's participation in the hearing on grounds that it would disclose Dube's " working theory of the case." The court allowed the State to remain, explaining that it did so because the motions were inextricably linked and were filed so late in the proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied both motions because Dube had filed the motions nearly eleven months after the established deadline and on the eve of trial, and had failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to State v. Watson, 1999 ME 41, PP 6-7, 726 A.2d 214

Page 1222

that the motion in limine was not a " fishing expedition."

[¶ 5] During the two-day trial, the victim, Dube, and other witnesses offered competing versions of the events at issue. After...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP