State v. Glidden

Decision Date02 April 1985
Citation489 A.2d 1108
PartiesSTATE of Maine v. Harold GLIDDEN.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

James E. Tierney, Atty. Gen., Nicholas M. Gess (orally), Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for plaintiff.

Julio DeSanctis (orally), Bangor, for defendant.


SCOLNIK, Justice.

Harold Glidden appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in the Superior Court, Penobscot County, convicting him of murder. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(A). The Court denied two defense motions for mistrial during the State's closing argument. The only questions on appeal are whether one or both of the two motions should have been granted. We affirm the judgment.

Joseph Albert, Glidden's co-defendant, pleaded guilty the day before Glidden's trial began and refused to testify. Glidden had recounted his version of the events as part of his unsuccessful defense in an earlier burglary trial. See State v. Harold Glidden, 487 A.2d 642 (Me.1985). He then repeated it in this trial.

According to Glidden, he and Albert picked up a young woman hitchhiker and drove her to a forest road in LaGrange, Maine. Though Albert restrained the victim by himself while driving, Glidden acknowledged closing the van door thus preventing her from jumping out. When they stopped, he said, he took a walk while Albert raped her. Glidden returned and saw Albert kill her with a hammer. The principal issue at trial was whether the defendant committed the crime or was criminally liable as an accomplice.

Glidden contends that either of two remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument warrants reversal. The first, he argues, improperly suggested that he had been involved in previous killings. The prosecutor had begun to describe the killers' state of mind as thrill-seeking. He compared the murder to those by serial killer Christopher Wilder who, after a well-publicized man-hunt, was captured in New Hampshire three weeks before Glidden's trial. The defense counsel promptly objected and asked for a mistrial, and then a curative instruction. The Court instructed the jury to disregard "that line of argument" as irrelevant and an "improper illustration." Given all the circumstances, the denial of motions for mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. The curative instruction was a sufficient remedy for any prejudice that may have resulted from the prosecutor's comment. State v. Spearin, 477 A.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Shuman
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1993
    ...a limiting instruction to the jury when none was requested by the defendant. State v. Dube, 598 A.2d 742, 745 (Me.1991); State v. Glidden, 489 A.2d 1108, 1110 (Me.1985); State v. McDonough, 350 A.2d 556, 564 B. Gun owner's manual Shuman next contends that the court erred in admitting, over ......
  • State v. Cloutier
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1997 the defendant." State v. Shuman, 622 A.2d 716, 718 (Me.1993) (citing State v. Dube, 598 A.2d 742, 745 (Me.1991); State v. Glidden, 489 A.2d 1108, 1110 (Me.1985); and State v. McDonough, 350 A.2d 556, 564 (Me.1976)). Here, Cloutier did not request a limiting instruction regarding prior ba......
  • State v. Deering
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1992 evidence as his Exhibit 2. 2 A defendant may not later complain about the effect of evidence he has introduced. See State v. Glidden, 489 A.2d 1108, 1110 (Me.1985) (fact of victim's pregnancy, despite in limine ruling of inadmissibility, was properly referred to by prosecutor in closing ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT