State v. Bridges, No. WAS-03-702.
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
| Writing for the Court | CLIFFORD, J. |
| Citation | 2004 ME 102,854 A.2d 855 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Katrina BRIDGES |
| Docket Number | No. WAS-03-702. |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2004 |
854 A.2d 855
2004 ME 102
v.
Katrina BRIDGES
No. WAS-03-702.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Submitted on Briefs: June 24, 2004.
Decided: August 2, 2004.
Jeffrey C. Toothaker, Esq., Toothaker & Chong, Ellsworth, for defendant.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
CLIFFORD, J.
[¶ 1] Katrina Bridges appeals from a judgment of conviction for murder, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(A) (1983),1 after a jury verdict in the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Gorman, J.). Bridges contends that the court erred or acted beyond its discretion when it (1) denied her request for a mistrial after a witness made a reference to the previous trial while testifying, and (2) refused to instruct the jury on adequate provocation. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] In January of 2001, Bridges was charged with the murder of Christopher Ingraham, the man with whom she was living in Jonesboro. Bridges filed a motion to suppress certain statements she made during police interviews that took place on January 3, 2001. The motion was denied after a hearing. The case proceeded to trial on September 10, 2001, and a Washington County jury found Bridges guilty of murder. Bridges was sentenced to forty-seven years of imprisonment.2
[¶ 4] Venue was transferred from Washington County. Bridges's new trial commenced on October 27, 2003. The State did not attempt to use any of the statements Bridges made to police during the January 3, 2001 interviews.
[¶ 5] The State did introduce testimony from two female prisoners concerning admissions Bridges made to them while in prison. One inmate testified that Bridges told her "[a]t least you didn't finish your guy — your person off like I did," and further told her that the victim of the homicide, Ingraham, had told Bridges that she was crazy, and that he was going to move out. The inmate also testified that Bridges told her that after shooting Ingraham, she went to the Irving gas station, and that when she came back Ingraham "was bleeding all over her stuff." She further testified that Bridges told her: "Good-bye, b___h. This murderer will walk free. See you on the outside." Another inmate testified that Bridges admitted to her that she shot Ingraham because he was abusive, and that the abuse consisted of Ingraham requiring Bridges to do work around the house from a list that he gave her.
[¶ 6] During the trial, the medical examiner, Dr. Margaret Greenwald, stated during her testimony:
The area in the upper right-hand that's just above the right eyebrow, I believe, was an — the defense in the last trial asked me to put this marking here, and this is an indication of where the bullet impacted on the inside of the skull.
(Emphasis added.) The trial court immediately called counsel and Dr. Greenwald to sidebar, and reminded the witness that she should not refer to the previous trial. The court took Bridges's motion for a mistrial under advisement and explained the need for the sidebar to the jury by stating that she "just wanted Dr. Greenwald to make sure she keeps her voice up so [the jury] could hear her while she's over there without the microphone." Later that day, in chambers, the court ruled:
After considering the motion for a mistrial, I am going to deny it; however, I am more than willing, if defense counsel wishes me to do so, to explain to the jury tomorrow that during this trial they may from time to time hear people refer to previous hearings or previous trials, and that one of the things they should keep in mind is that in order to get ready for a trial of this caliber, we have hearings on various issues of evidence, and so they may from time to time hear witnesses who have previously testified at those kinds of hearings refer to them.
[Mr. Toothaker], do you want to decide now whether you want me to give it or do you want to think about it?
After saying that the instruction "sounds good," Bridges's counsel decided to "let it slide." Bridges's counsel did note, regarding an alternate juror:
The guy in the back row — if we can go off the record — well, actually no. The back row, second one in, his eyeballs lit up. You think you were deer in the854 A.2d 858headlights? It was one of the few things that I was paying attention to.
....
Well, he — he heard retrial, and he sat right up and he was looking around like, Am I the only one who heard this ... [?] But, you know, he reacted to the comment.
The court noted that it "didn't notice any reaction, but [was] more than willing to take [counsel's] word for it, and he's one of the alternates."
[¶ 7] After the jury was brought in the next day for trial, the court instructed them as follows:
The other thing is that the attorneys reminded me last night that I forgot to give you some information in the preliminary instructions. As you may know, in most felony cases in Maine there are a number of hearings that precede the actual trial, and from time to time during this trial you may hear witnesses refer to those previous trials or hearings when they testify about something. We've had a number of evidentiary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dolloff, Docket No. Cum–11–46.
...Juries are presumed to have followed jury instructions, including curative instructions. See Gentles, 619 F.3d at 82;State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, ¶ 10, 854 A.2d 855. Even viewing the comments in the light of greatest harm to Linda's right to a fair trial, the jury could not have taken the......
-
State v. Frisbee, Docket No. Was–15–56.
...we will overrule a denial “only in the event of prosecutorial bad faith or in exceptionally prejudicial circumstances,” State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, ¶ 10, 854 A.2d 855 (quotation marks omitted). There is no allegation of prosecutorial bad faith or misconduct here.[140 A.3d 1236 [¶ 13] Fac......
-
State v. Williams, Docket No. Yor–10–578.
...only against a codefendant.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987); see State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, ¶ 10, 854 A.2d 855 (jurors are presumed to follow the jury instructions including curative instructions); United States v. Gentles, 619 F.3d 75, 82 ......
-
State v. Williams, Docket: Cum-19-399
...trial will satisfy the interests of justice." [241 A.3d 845 State v. Poblete , 2010 ME 37, ¶ 26, 993 A.2d 1104 (quoting State v. Bridges , 2004 ME 102, ¶ 11, 854 A.2d 855 ).¶35] Notwithstanding Williams's contention, the record indicates that, although Williams saw the State's physical demo......
-
State v. Dolloff, Docket No. Cum–11–46.
...Juries are presumed to have followed jury instructions, including curative instructions. See Gentles, 619 F.3d at 82;State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, ¶ 10, 854 A.2d 855. Even viewing the comments in the light of greatest harm to Linda's right to a fair trial, the jury could not have taken the......
-
State v. Frisbee, Docket No. Was–15–56.
...we will overrule a denial “only in the event of prosecutorial bad faith or in exceptionally prejudicial circumstances,” State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, ¶ 10, 854 A.2d 855 (quotation marks omitted). There is no allegation of prosecutorial bad faith or misconduct here.[140 A.3d 1236 [¶ 13] Fac......
-
State v. Williams, Docket No. Yor–10–578.
...only against a codefendant.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987); see State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, ¶ 10, 854 A.2d 855 (jurors are presumed to follow the jury instructions including curative instructions); United States v. Gentles, 619 F.3d 75, 82 ......
-
State v. Williams, Docket: Cum-19-399
...trial will satisfy the interests of justice." [241 A.3d 845 State v. Poblete , 2010 ME 37, ¶ 26, 993 A.2d 1104 (quoting State v. Bridges , 2004 ME 102, ¶ 11, 854 A.2d 855 ).¶35] Notwithstanding Williams's contention, the record indicates that, although Williams saw the State's physical demo......