State v. Archer
| Decision Date | 14 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. Pen–10–423. |
| Citation | 25 A.3d 103,2011 ME 80 |
| Parties | STATE of Mainev.David ARCHER. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Verne E. Paradie, Jr. (orally), Trafton & Matzen, LLP, Auburn, ME, for David Archer.R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, Susan J. Pope, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, ME, for the State of Maine.Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ.
[¶ 1] David Archer appeals from convictions for attempted murder (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. §§ 152(1)(A), 201(1)(A) (2010), and elevated aggravated assault (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 208–B(1)(A) (2010), entered by the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Anderson, J.) following a jury trial.1 Archer challenges the court's actions: (1) overruling his objection to medical testimony that referenced facts and opinions in a report of a non-testifying physician; (2) allowing testimony by Archer's mother that, hours before Archer stabbed the victim, he displayed a knife at his mother's house and threatened to kill the victim; and (3) denying his request to introduce the complete recordings of eight telephone conversations he had with his mother while he was incarcerated. We affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] The record indicates the following history, including facts that the jury could have found supported the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9, ¶ 2, 10 A.3d 739, 741.
[¶ 3] Beginning in February 2008, David Archer and the victim dated for approximately six to eight weeks. The victim terminated her relationship with Archer in April 2008 and began seeing another man. On the morning of April 26, 2008, in Bangor, Archer saw the victim from a distance and began hollering to her, indicating that he wanted to speak with her. The victim did not speak with Archer. Throughout the day, Archer sent her numerous text messages, expressing his continued love for her and his desire for the two of them to be reunited.
[¶ 4] In the afternoon, Archer visited his mother in Brewer. Archer indicated he was very upset about his failed relationship with the victim. He displayed a knife, flicking it open and closed, while his mother watched. Archer told her that “[i]f he saw [the victim] with someone [else], he may use the knives on ‘em’ and that “he would probably kill them both.” Archer also told his mother that he “didn't care about anything anymore because he had Hepatitis C.” After speaking with his mother further, Archer left her house calmly.
[¶ 5] During the evening of April 26, the victim returned to the Bangor home of a married couple, with whom she was staying along with her new boyfriend. Archer arrived at the home close to the same time. Archer was quiet and asked to speak with the victim for a few minutes alone. The victim spoke with Archer quickly, then went upstairs to speak with her current boyfriend for approximately fifteen minutes. The victim next spoke with her friend, who encouraged the victim to speak with Archer outside just “to get it over with.”
[¶ 6] The victim walked outside with Archer and her friend, but she had forgotten her purse, so she asked her friend to retrieve it for her, leaving the victim alone with Archer. Before the victim could speak with Archer, he grabbed her shoulder and pulled her towards him. The victim, at first, thought that Archer punched her twice; he had, however, stabbed her twice in the abdomen, which the victim only realized when she felt sharp pain and saw blood. The victim fell to the ground. Her friend came outside. Archer saw her friend and ran away, leaving the victim bleeding on the ground.
[¶ 7] The victim's friend's husband, alerted by her friend's screams, picked up the victim and brought her inside the house; the victim then observed that she had bled all the way down “to [her] knees.” The friend and her husband began applying pressure to the victim's wounds with a towel in order to stop the bleeding while waiting for the ambulance. After the ambulance arrived, the victim was transported to Eastern Maine Medical Center (EMMC).
[¶ 8] The attending surgeon at EMMC performed exploratory surgery on the victim to ascertain the path of the stabbing and the damage caused by the stabbing. Surgery revealed that there were two stab wounds—one two inches from the victim's heart and another that had lacerated the victim's liver. The laceration to the liver was a potentially life-threatening injury, as it placed the victim at risk for hemorrhage, shock, infection, and death. Following surgery, the victim remained in the hospital until April 30, when she was discharged. Her recovery lasted between six and eight weeks. The scarring from the stab wounds and the surgery are permanent.
[¶ 9] Archer was arrested for the elevated aggravated assault the following morning. On June 2, 2008, the Penobscot County Grand Jury indicted Archer for attempted murder, elevated aggravated assault, and aggravated assault. Archer initially pleaded not guilty to the indictment. Following Stage I and II examinations of Archer, see 15 M.R.S. § 101–B(1)(2) (2008),2 Archer entered an additional plea of not criminally responsible because of mental disease or defect, pursuant to 17–A M.R.S. §§ 39, 40 (2010).
[¶ 10] The two-stage trial to first determine guilt and then, if guilt was found, determine criminal responsibility commenced on January 12, 2010. Early in the guilt phase of the trial, the State offered, and the court admitted into evidence without objection from Archer, a complete, certified copy of the medical records, including reports of the treating physicians, concerning the victim's treatment at EMMC. See 16 M.R.S. § 357 (2010); M.R. Evid. 803(4), (6).
[¶ 11] Later in the trial, Archer objected to testimony by the State's medical expert, who based his opinions on the reports of the victim's treating physician who did not testify at the trial. Those findings and conclusions were included in the previously-admitted medical records. The court overruled Archer's objection to this testimony.
[¶ 12] While incarcerated at the Penobscot County Jail, Archer had eleven separate telephone conversations with his mother that were recorded in accordance with jail practice. At trial, the State offered portions of three of those recorded conversations as admissions by Archer. See M.R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Archer argued that no portion of the recordings should be admitted unless the recordings of all eleven conversations were admitted and heard by the jury to provide a complete context for the conversations. See M.R. Evid. 106. The court allowed the State to present evidence regarding the portions of the three recordings it wanted to present, and Archer was able, during his cross-examination of the State's witness, to present evidence regarding the complete substance of the three recordings offered by the State. The court refused to allow the jury to hear or receive evidence about the substance of the other eight conversations.
[¶ 13] The court also allowed, over Archer's remoteness objection, testimony by Archer's mother regarding his display of a knife and his threat to kill the victim that occurred at his mother's house a few hours before Archer's attack on the victim.
[¶ 14] The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charges on January 19, 2010.
[¶ 15] On January 20, 2010, after hearing testimony and evaluating exhibits concerning Archer's criminal responsibility at the time of the crimes, the jury also found Archer criminally responsible for those crimes.3
[¶ 16] After a sentencing hearing on July 6, 2010, the court sentenced Archer to: (1) eighteen years' imprisonment for the attempted murder conviction, with all but thirteen years suspended; (2) thirteen years' imprisonment for the elevated aggravated assault conviction, to run concurrently with the imprisonment for the attempted murder; and (3) four years' probation with extensive conditions, including requirements that he submit to mental health evaluations and counseling and prohibitions from having contact with the victim and illegally using drugs.
[¶ 17] Archer appealed his convictions and his sentence. He later withdrew his sentence appeal.
[¶ 18] Archer contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State's medical expert to testify regarding the factual and medical conclusions of another physician that were included in the victim's medical records. The physician whose findings and conclusions were discussed did not testify, as she had moved from the area.
[¶ 19] Pursuant to M.R. Evid. 703, “an expert witness may rely upon the hearsay communications of other experts to establish the foundation for his or her opinion.” State v. Marques, 2000 ME 43, ¶ 14, 747 A.2d 186, 190. However, “[a]n expert opinion does not become the vehicle to convey inadmissible hearsay evidence into the trial for direct consideration and analysis by the jury.” Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 703.2 at 399 (6th ed.2007).
[¶ 20] Though Archer timely objected to the State's expert's testimony, the court overruled the objection, noting that the State's expert was allowed to “explain what is already in the medical record that's already admitted into evidence.” The court was correct. The witness was properly allowed to testify and be subject to cross-examination regarding statements in the medical records that already had been admitted without objection.
[¶ 21] Archer contends that the court erred when it allowed his mother to testify about threats he made regarding the victim hours prior to the attack. He asserts that this threat was too remote from the time of the crime and that the prejudicial effect of this testimony outweighed its probative value. M.R. Evid. 403.
[¶ 22] A trial court's decision regarding the effect of “remoteness” on the admissibility of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stanislaw
...The second comparison focuses on cases involving prison terms comparable to Stanislaw's unsuspended term of twenty-seven years. In State v. Archer, 2011 ME 80, ¶¶ 1, 3, 4, 6, 25 A.3d 103, the defendant was convicted of attempted murder and elevated aggravated assault for stabbing his ex-gir......
-
In re Corey B.
...and permanency planning order, and the father did not object to the order's admission at hearing. See M.R. Evid. 703 ; see also State v. Archer , 2011 ME 80, ¶ 20, 25 A.3d 103 (concluding that the trial court was correct to allow the State's medical expert to testify about a medical record ......
-
State v. Hussein
...party may seek to introduce the remaining portion in order to place the previously admitted portion into context. See, e.g., State v. Archer , 2011 ME 80, ¶ 27, 25 A.3d 103. Rule 106 was not designed as a tool to preclude the admission of evidence; rather, the rule creates a remedy for thos......
-
Basha v. Cincinnati Inc.
...records may also be admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Maine Rule of Evidence 803(6). See State v. Archer, 2011 ME 80, ¶ 10, 25 A.3d 103; Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 803.6 at 487 (6th ed. 2007). In order to be admissible pursuant to the business record......