State v. Louis, Docket: Pis-07-306.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Pis-07-306. |
| Citation | 951 A.2d 80,2008 ME 101 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Heath ST. LOUIS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
N. Laurence Willey, Esq., Thomas M. Matzilevich, Esq. (orally), Willey Law Offices, Bangor, ME, for Heath St Louis.
R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, Susan J. Pope, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bangor, ME, for the State of Maine.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, and GORMAN, JJ.
[¶ 1] Heath St. Louis appeals a judgment of conviction of two counts of manslaughter (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A) (2007), resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle, entered in the Superior Court (Piscataquis County, Mead, J.) after a jury found him guilty. St. Louis argues that he was denied: (1) due process due to prosecutorial delay and failure to retain evidence; (2) his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation as a result of the destruction of the accident vehicle; and (3) a fair trial. We affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
[¶ 2] The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On October 20, 2004, Heath St. Louis, Drake Martell, and Elias Russell were involved in a one-car accident in Sebec. Martell, who was found seat-belted into the front passenger seat, and Russell, who was found seat-belted into the rear right passenger seat, were both killed in the crash while St. Louis, the driver,1 survived.
[¶ 3] Blood-alcohol tests showed Russell had a blood-alcohol content of .25%, Martell's was .17%, and St. Louis's was .15%, at the time of the accident. Additionally, swabs taken from the accident vehicle by the Maine State Police crime laboratory showed that St. Louis's DNA was present on the driver's air bag, which was deployed, that neither Martell's nor Russell's DNA matched samples from the airbag that did not match St. Louis's DNA, and blood samples from the driver's area of the car were matched to St. Louis. In November 2004, after the crime laboratory completed testing, the car was released by the Sheriffs Office to the insurance company. The car was destroyed soon thereafter.
[¶ 4] Nearly one year later, on October 21, 2005, St. Louis was indicted on two counts of manslaughter. Before trial, St. Louis moved to suppress the forensic evidence gathered by the State and moved to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that prosecutorial delay and the destruction of the accident vehicle denied him due process and governmental fair play. The court denied these motions.
[¶ 5] St. Louis's criminal trial was heard over four days in February 2007. During the trial, St. Louis was not permitted to refer to the destruction of the accident vehicle, but could, and did, refer to its "unavailability," based on the court's finding that the intent element of spoliation was lacking. Additionally, the court declined to give St. Louis's requested spoliation instruction to the jury. The jury found St. Louis guilty on both counts of manslaughter. St. Louis moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied. The court entered a judgment of conviction and St. Louis was sentenced to a term of ten years, all but three and one-half years suspended, with six years of probation. St. Louis appeals.
[¶ 6] The principal issue in this case is the effect of the State's failure to prevent the destruction of the accident vehicle by the insurer. Although we find all of St. Louis's arguments on this question to be unpersuasive, we briefly address the issue of spoliation.
[¶ 7] In this case, the court correctly found, in its several orders and rulings on St. Louis's various motions, that St. Louis failed to show that the vehicle contained evidence of exculpatory value that was apparent before its destruction or that the State acted in bad faith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wai Chan
...104 S.Ct. 2528 ; see also, e.g. , Cote , 2015 ME 78, ¶ 4, 118 A.3d 805 ; State v. Cruthirds , 2014 ME 86, ¶ 27, 96 A.3d 80 ; State v. St. Louis , 2008 ME 101, ¶ 3, 951 A.2d 80. When presented with allegations that the government failed to disclose information, we have made clear that the du......
-
State v. Cruthirds
...three elements must be present in order for [a defendant's] right to a fair trial to be found to have been violated.”); see also State v. St. Louis, 2008 ME 101, ¶ 7, 951 A.2d 80 (concluding that the trial court correctly found that the defendant failed to show the State's bad faith); State......
-
State v. Cote
...102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) (holding that the negligent failure by the police to refrigerate evidence did not amount to bad faith); State v. St. Louis, 2008 ME 101, ¶ 7, 951 A.2d 80 (affirming trial court's finding of no bad faith despite “the State's serious oversight” in allowing a vehicle inv......
-
Morin v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group, LLC
...value apparent before its destruction and the defendant is unable to obtain comparable evidence. State v. St. Louis, 2008 ME 101, ¶ 7, 951 A.2d 80. --------- ...