State v. Hassan
| Decision Date | 12 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. Cum–12–198. |
| Citation | 2013 ME 98,82 A.3d 86 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Samadi M. HASSAN. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Verne E. Paradie, Jr., Esq. (orally), Trafton & Matzen, LLP, Auburn, for appellant Samadi Hassan.
Stephanie Anderson, District Attorney, and Deborah A. Chmielewski, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Office of District Attorney, Prosecutorial District No. Two, Portland, for appellee State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
[¶ 1] Samadi M. Hassan appeals from a judgment of conviction for aggravated assault (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 208(1)(B) (2012), criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. §§ 209(1), 1252(4) (2012), criminal restraint (Class D), 17–A M.R.S. § 302(1)(B)(1) (2012), and violation of a condition of release (Class E), 15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A) (2012), entered in the Unified Criminal Docket ( Moskowitz, J.) following a jury trial. Hassan challenges the admission of evidence related to the events that preceded his arrest, as well as testimony regarding the methods the police used to compile a photographic array that was shown to the victim. He also contends that the prosecutor's closing argument contained statements about the victim's credibility that constituted prosecutorial misconduct and deprived him of a fair trial. We affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] “The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, rationally support the verdict.” State v. Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 3, 58 A.3d 1032.
[¶ 3] At around 12:00 a.m. on July 1, 2011, the victim went to a Riverton Park apartment to purchase marijuana. She arrived to find a small party at the apartment, with at least six or seven people in attendance. One of the men at the party began pulling the victim's headscarf, which she wore for religious reasons, as well as her hair. The victim told the man to stop, but he proceeded to roughly pull the scarf until it came off the victim's head.
[¶ 4] The victim threatened to call the police if the man persisted. In response, a group of men and women pinned her to the ground and began kicking and hitting her. The victim was eventually able to stand up, and at some point a man in a red shirt began waving a knife at her. The victim was attempting to hold the man back when the knife struck her index finger, causing a laceration that went all the way to the bone.1 The man wielding the knife then held the knife to the victim's throat and told her that he would kill her if she did not “shut up.” The man then forced the victim to clean up the large amount of blood that had come from her finger, using a white T-shirt.
[¶ 5] The victim repeatedly asked to be allowed to go home, but the man refused to let her leave. Sometime around 6 or 7 a.m., the man allowed the victim to go outside to smoke a cigarette, at which point she fled to a convenience store located near the apartment. Once at the convenience store, the victim called 911 and reported that she had been assaulted and that she was bleeding.
[¶ 6] The police arrived to find the victim upset and shaking. The victim told police that while she was waiting for them to arrive, her aggressor had arrived at the convenience store in a blue Dodge with a Maine license plate. 2 She then directed the police to the apartment where she was assaulted.
[¶ 7] Once at the apartment building, the police set up a perimeter around the building and then knocked on the door. After receiving no response, they attempted to look into the windows of the apartment, but the curtains and blinds were drawn. Officers could see shadows and movements through the windows of the apartment and believed that there might be a firearm inside. They evacuated other apartments in the building and sought a search warrant.
[¶ 8] Timothy Farris, a senior lead officer and crisis negotiator for the Portland Police Department, arrived at the apartment at approximately 7 a.m. Farris maintained an office in Riverton Park and was familiar with Hassan. Farris received information that Hassan was the man whom the victim had identified at the convenience store as her attacker. Farris called Hassan's cell phone number and spoke with him briefly. Hassan agreed to come out with the other people in the apartment but would not reveal the names of the people inside the apartment or say how many people were inside. After no one exited the apartment, Farris approached the residence in an armored police vehicle. Using the vehicle's public address system, he spoke to the apartment's occupants. Farris testified that those inside the building responded by taunting, yelling, and giving “the middle finger a few times.” Farris observed that Hassan was one of the people taunting the police.
[¶ 9] At approximately 1 p.m., Farris and another officer, dressed in protective gear, approached the apartment and attempted face-to-face negotiations. Farris spoke with the people that were in the apartment, including Hassan, for about one hour until, finally, the occupants peacefully exited the building. Hassan was taken into custody. The police eventually obtained a search warrant, and in the apartment they discovered a headscarf, some white T-shirts, two knives, and a red T-shirt with red stains.
[¶ 10] Meanwhile, the victim went to the police station, where she was shown a photographic array of fifty-four men fitting the general description of her attacker. After looking through each page of the array, the victim identified a photograph of Samadi Hassan as depicting the man who threatened her with a knife and cut her.
[¶ 11] In November 2011, a grand jury indicted Hassan for one count of aggravated assault (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 208(1)(B); one count of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. §§ 209(1), 1252(4); one count of criminal restraint (Class D), 17–A M.R.S. § 302(1)(B)(1); and one count of violation of condition of release (Class E), 15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A).
[¶ 12] Prior to trial, Hassan filed a motion in limine, which sought to exclude several strands of evidence, two of which are particularly relevant to the disposition of this appeal. First, Hassan challenged the admission of evidence relating to the events that occurred between the time the police showed up at the apartment and the time that the occupants finally emerged from the apartment. Hassan contended that the evidence was not relevant, and that even if it was relevant, its probative value was outweighed by its highly prejudicial nature. Second, Hassan argued that the court should exclude the State's anticipated trial testimony that the photographic array shown to the victim “exclusively contained photographs of men who the police believe are associated with criminal activity.” The State agreed that at trial it would elicit testimony only on “the photographic lineup process” but not “where the photographs came from,” and the court denied Hassan's motion.
[¶ 13] A jury trial was held on February 14, 2012. During opening statements, the prosecutor told the jury that she expected the evidence to show, among other things, that Hassan was involved in what she characterized as “a police standoff for several hours.” Hassan renewed his objection to this evidence, which was overruled. Following the objection, Farris testified in detail as to the events that occurred between when the police arrived at the apartment and when the occupants exited from the apartment. Hassan did not object to any of the specific testimony offered by Farris at trial.3
[¶ 14] The State also called the victim to the stand, and she identified Hassan as the man who had attacked her with the knife and had refused to let her leave the apartment. The victim also testified that her attacker wore the red shirt seized by the police, that the headscarf discovered at the apartment was the one she was wearing the night of the crime, and that the knife used in the assault looked similar to knives found in the apartment.
[¶ 15] The State also introduced evidence that the victim identified Hassan as her attacker from the photographic array. A police detective testified, without objection from Hassan, regarding the three types of photographic arrays that the police typically use and how the police compile the photographs in the array. The detective stated that the police showed the victim the type of array that typically includes both arrest photographs and other types of photographs such as yearbook pictures and Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) photographs. The detective did not specify the source of the photograph of Hassan that was used in the photographic array, nor did the jury view the photographic array or Hassan's photograph from the array.
[¶ 16] The defense, meanwhile, focused on the victim's credibility. During opening statements, defense counsel stated that the victim “has told inconsistent stories to different parties,” and suggested that the jury “pay close attention to credibility, believability and truthfulness.” On cross-examination of the victim, Hassan focused on inconsistencies between the victim's testimony and statements she made or allegedly made the morning of the crime. During closing arguments, defense counsel again focused on the victim's credibility, stating, “I would submit to you, the jury, that we really can't believe much [of] what comes out of [the victim].”
[¶ 17] During her closing argument, the prosecutor reviewed the evidence presented in the case and asserted that the jury should find the victim credible because the evidentiary photographs and the medical records corroborated the victim's testimony. The prosecutor then addressed the inconsistencies in the victim's story that the defense had identified and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Daly
...an abuse of discretion, as we do any Rule 401 or 403 determination. See State v. Waterman , 2010 ME 45, ¶¶ 35, 37, 995 A.2d 243 ; State v. Hassan , 2013 ME 98, ¶ 24, 82 A.3d 86. Because there is no dispute that witnesses could have provided otherwise admissible testimony about the facts pro......
-
State v. Lovejoy
...that the Fifth Amendment protects a person from being incriminated by his or her own compelled testimonial communications); cf. State v. Hassan, 2013 ME 98, ¶¶ 20–27, 82 A.3d 86 (upholding the admission of evidence related to a police standoff as evidence of consciousness of guilt). 7. In S......
-
Gaudette v. Mainely Media, LLC
...(quotation marks omitted). Often, the improper basis is an emotional one. State v. Marquis, 2017 ME 104, ¶ 29, 162 A.3d 818; see State v. Hassan, 2013 ME 98, ¶ 26, 82 A.3d 86 ("Prejudicial evidence is inherently inflammatory evidence that is likely to arouse the passion of the fact-finder."......
-
State v. Hanscom
...their testimony." A lawyer should not "state a personal opinion as to ... the credibility of a witness." State v. Hassan , 2013 ME 98 ¶ 33, 82 A.3d 86 (citing M.R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(e) ). A prosecutor may properly suggest to the jury ways to analyze the credibility of witnesses when those a......
-
§ 9.07 Adverse Inferences
...a prosecutor: conduct ("drove his car at her while she was in a parking lot") indicative of "consciousness of guilt"); State v. Hassan, 82 A.3d 86, 92 (Me. 2013) (police standoff probative of consciousness of guilt); State v. Orozco, 708 S.E.2d 227, 231 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011) ("[E]vidence of ......