State v. Haji-Hassan, Docket: Cum–17–139
| Decision Date | 22 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Cum–17–139 |
| Citation | 182 A.3d 145 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Abdirahman H. HAJI–HASSAN |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Amber L. Tucker, Esq. (orally), The Law Office of Amber L. Tucker, LLC, Portland, for appellant Abdirahman H. Haji–Hassan
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Lara M. Nomani, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
[¶ 1] Abdirahman H. Haji–Hassan appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the trial court (Cumberland County, Warren, J. ) after a jury found him guilty of intentional or knowing murder, 17–A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A) (2017). Haji–Hassan contends that the court abused its discretion and erred when it excluded evidence that the State of Maine's Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Mark Flomenbaum, had been removed from his former position as Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and erred when it instructed the jury on evidence of flight to avoid prosecution. Because the court did not abuse its discretion or err in either respect, we affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] "When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the murder conviction." State v. Cummings , 2017 ME 143, ¶ 3, 166 A.3d 996.
[¶ 3] On November 21, 2014, Haji–Hassan and four other men were in an apartment in Portland. Haji–Hassan began waving a gun around while arguing with one of the men near the front door. Haji–Hassan fired two shots: the first was in a downward direction, and the second hit the victim in the leg. When the second shot was fired, one of the men left the apartment. Another man, the tenant of the apartment, went to the kitchen and heard a third shot followed by a "thud." When the tenant returned to the first room, he saw the unresponsive victim lying on the floor with a wound
to his head and called 911. Haji–Hassan and the remaining man had fled the apartment while the tenant was still in the kitchen.
[¶ 4] On November 25, 2014, Haji–Hassan was charged by complaint with intentional or knowing murder, 17–A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A). At the time the complaint was filed, Haji–Hassan's location was unknown. On December 19, 2014, law enforcement officers went to a home in Minneapolis, Minnesota where Haji–Hassan was believed to be staying. The officers were admitted into the home and repeatedly announced their presence and called to Haji–Hassan. Haji–Hassan, who was hiding in the basement, came out only when a police dog barked at him, and when he did come out, he gave the officers a fake name.
[¶ 5] On November 22, 2014, Dr. Flomenbaum performed an autopsy of the victim. On a later date, he examined photographs and x-rays that were taken in January 2015 of an injury to Haji–Hassan's leg. Dr. Flomenbaum opined that the leg injury was "consistent with having been sustained by a bullet ... and could absolutely have occurred around the time frame of about eight weeks prior to when the photographs were taken" and that it was "consistent with healing of an entrance and exit of a bullet coming fairly straight downwards."
[¶ 6] In January 2015, Haji–Hassan was charged by indictment with murder, 17–A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A).
[¶ 7] Before trial, the State filed two motions1 for in camera review of information and a motion in limine regarding Dr. Flomenbaum. The State's motions for in camera review requested that the court determine whether, in accordance with Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, 153–54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the State had to disclose information about a Connecticut trial in which Dr. Flomenbaum testified as a hired expert, and in which the presiding judge rejected his testimony, finding it "not credible." In pretrial proceedings and written orders on the motions for in camera review, the court ordered disclosure of the information to Haji–Hassan and also addressed the potential admissibility of the information for impeachment purposes but did not rule on that question.2 Although the court invited the parties to file motions in limine to address the evidence in question "if defense counsel [sought] to use the documents or information for purposes of impeachment," no motions in limine were filed regarding the determinations by the Connecticut judge.
[¶ 8] The State's motion in limine sought to exclude evidence that Dr. Flomenbaum had been removed from his employment as the Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At the hearing on the motion in limine, a few hours before the jury was sworn and the trial began, Haji–Hassan presented evidence that Dr. Flomenbaum's removal was attributed to "fundamental operational and administrative failures, including a substantial backlog of bodies, one case of a missing body, [his office's] failure to meet public health and occupational safety standards and [Dr. Flomenbaum's] lack of candor with the administration." The court concluded that Dr. Flomenbaum's removal was based on his failures as an administrator, not his performance as a pathologist, and excluded the evidence of his removal.3 The court reasoned that his role as an administrator was not an issue in Haji–Hassan's case, and therefore evidence of his removal was not "relevant to ... his qualifications and actions as a pathologist," and admission would lead to "a fruitless discussion of what the grounds [for removal] were and what the grounds weren't." Nonetheless, the court reminded the parties that Dr. Flomenbaum's testimony at trial could open the door to the admission of the excluded evidence.
[¶ 9] The court held a six-day jury trial in December 2016. Dr. Flomenbaum testified about the autopsy that he performed on the victim and his assessment of Haji–Hassan's leg injury. Neither party questioned Dr. Flomenbaum about his removal from his position in Massachusetts or about the presiding judge's assessment of his credibility in the Connecticut trial, and the court made no further rulings on the issues.
[¶ 10] After closing arguments, the court instructed the jury orally and in writing. With respect to Haji–Hassan's presence in Minnesota, the court gave the following instruction on flight to avoid prosecution:
There is also one other subject mentioned by both counsel, and there is an issue as to whether Mr. Haji–Hassan fled to Minnesota to avoid arrest or prosecution. There was evidence presented by both sides on that issue and it is up to you to determine the facts. I just need to tell you that, if proven, flight to avoid prosecution may be evidence of consciousness of guilt. You are not required to draw such an inference. It is up to you, as the jury, to decide what weight or effect, if any, should be given to any evidence concerning Mr. Haji–Hassan's arrest in Minnesota.
Haji–Hassan did not object to the flight instruction.
[¶ 11] The jury found Haji–Hassan guilty of murder, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of thirty-nine years.
[¶ 12] Haji–Hassan timely appealed from the judgment of conviction. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2017) ; M.R. App. P. 2(b)(2)(a) (Tower 2016).4
[¶ 13] We first consider Haji–Hassan's argument that the court should have admitted the evidence of Dr. Flomenbaum's removal from his position as Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. "We review a trial court's rulings on relevance for clear error, and rulings on admissibility for an abuse of discretion." State v. Maine , 2017 ME 25, ¶ 23, 155 A.3d 871 (alteration omitted) (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted). However, if the challenge to the ruling was not properly preserved for appellate review, we review the ruling for obvious error.5 See State v. Fahnley , 2015 ME 82, ¶ 15, 119 A.3d 727 ; see also M.R. Evid. 103(d) ; M.R.U. Crim. P. 52(b).
[¶ 14] In its pretrial ruling on the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Dr. Flomenbaum's removal, the court determined that the evidence of his removal was not relevant to his actions as a pathologist in Haji–Hassan's case and would lead to a "fruitless discussion" of the grounds for his removal. The court reminded the parties that the door to admission could be opened at trial, but neither party made any further motions regarding the removal evidence or attempted to question Dr. Flomenbaum about it. "Although the applicable standard of review is generally depend[e]nt upon whether the alleged error is preserved, we do not need to determine whether" Haji–Hassan preserved his proffer of the removal evidence to impeach Dr. Flomenbaum's qualifications and capabilities as an expert. See State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 9, 892 A.2d 456. We assume, without deciding, that Haji–Hassan's arguments and the court's ruling at the hearing on the State's motion in limine served to preserve the objection, and we therefore apply the clear error and "abuse of discretion standard[s] of review, which [are] more beneficial to [Haji–Hassan] than the obvious error standard." See id. Even under that more beneficial standard of review, however, Haji–Hassan cannot prevail because the court did not err or abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence of Dr. Flomenbaum's removal.
[¶ 15] We must first determine whether the court committed clear error in determining that the evidence of Dr. Flomenbaum's removal, offered for purposes of impeaching his qualifications and capabilities as an expert, was not relevant to the case. The Maine Rules of Evidence generally authorize the admission of relevant evidence. See M.R. Evid. 402. "Evidence helpful in evaluating the credibility of a witness is ‘of consequence’ since it will aid in appraising the probative value of other evidence." Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 401.1 at 92 (6th ed. 2007);...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sykes, Docket: And-18-181
...on the State's motion in limine, even though he ostensibly abandoned that objection at trial. See State v. Haji-Hassan , 2018 ME 42, ¶ 14, 182 A.3d 145 (where we "assum[ed], without deciding, that [a defendant's] arguments and the court's ruling at the hearing on the State's motion in limin......
-
In re Corey B.
...not preserved for appellate review, we apply the obvious error standard. See M.R. Evid. 103(d) ; State v. Haji-Hassan , 2018 ME 42, ¶ 13, 182 A.3d 145.[¶7] The father objected to the physician's testimony at the hearing on reliability and hearsay grounds. However, the fact that the physicia......
-
State v. Leon
...we review for obvious error, which Leon has the burden to establish. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 52(b) ; State v. Haji–Hassan , 2018 ME 42, ¶ 18, 182 A.3d 145. Here, no matter what standard of review is imposed, the court committed no error. [¶ 8] "It is the general rule since Lord Mansfield's time......
-
State v. Coleman
...allowed on cross-examination to show the special interests of an individual in testifying."); cf. State v. Haji-Hassan , 2018 ME 42, ¶ 22, 182 A.3d 145 (concluding that the court did not commit obvious error by excluding evidence of a state medical examiner's removal from a previous job "be......