State v. Hinds
| Decision Date | 25 November 1981 |
| Citation | 437 A.2d 191 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Walter HINDS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
John R. Atwood, Dist. Atty., Robert VanWyck (orally), Asst. Dist. Atty., Wiscasset, for plaintiff.
Thomas A. Berry (orally), Boothbay Harbor, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and GODFREY, NICHOLS, CARTER, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of burglary, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 401 (Supp.1981); rape, id., § 252; and gross sexual misconduct, id., § 253. The Superior Court, Lincoln County, entered judgment and imposed sentence of ten years for burglary and twenty years for each of the sexual offenses, to be served concurrently. We affirm the convictions.
Over objection, the presiding justice permitted defendant's employer to testify that defendant had called her two and one-half hours after the incident to say, "I really blew it last night." Defendant contends that this statement was so ambiguous, and yet so likely to be interpreted by the jury as an admission, that its unfair prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value. M.R.Evid. 403.
Had this statement been admitted without a proper foundation to narrow its meaning, defendant's objection would be well taken. At trial, however, it was preceded by testimony of two police officers who had questioned defendant after his arrest only a few hours after the crime. They testified that defendant had been able to account for his whereabouts at all times on the night before, except between the hours of 3:00 to 5:00 a. m., when the attack had occurred. Since none of the activities defendant had recalled from the prior night were such as would later make a reasonable person express remorse, his statement of regret must have referred to whatever he had done between 3:00 and 5:00 a. m. Independent evidence linking defendant to the crime, including an identification by the victim and his own confession, made it extremely unlikely that his remorse was spurred by some other event.
M.R.Evid. 403 requires the trial judge to make a balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice. In this case, foundational evidence that preceded admission of defendant's facially ambiguous statement so clarified its meaning as to make the statement highly probative. The statement was indeed prejudicial to defendant, as would be any evidence tending to show guilt, but the danger of its leading the jury to an incorrect conclusion was so slight as to preclude fears that the prejudice was unfair.
Rulings on questions of admissibility under ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jahnke v. State
...a decision based on M.R.Evid. 403 to exclude evidence only if the trial justice abused his discretion in so deciding, State v. Hinds, Me., 437 A.2d 191 (1981). Interpreting the decision below as one based on Rule 403, we find such an abuse of discretion. Both Dr. Bishop's and Dr. Krueger's ......
-
State v. Anaya
...a decision based on M.R.Evid. 403 to exclude evidence only if the trial justice abused his discretion in so deciding, State v. Hinds, Me., 437 A.2d 191 (1981). Interpreting the decision below as one based on Rule 403, we find such an abuse of discretion. Both Dr. Bishop's and Dr. Krueger's ......
-
State v. Moses
...902, 710 P.2d 981 (1985); People v. Sabell, 708 P.2d 463 (Colo.1985); State v. Gortarez, 141 Ariz. 254, 686 P.2d 1224 (1984); State v. Hinds, 437 A.2d 191 (Me.1981); Bakken v. State, 489 P.2d 120 (Alaska 1971). If there had been no evidence of sexual abuse by the defendant, there would be n......