State v. Nobles
| Decision Date | 13 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Pen–17–196 |
| Citation | 179 A.3d 910 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Eric NOBLES |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Tina Heather Nadeau, Esq. (orally), The Law Office of Tina Heather Nadeau, PLLC, Portland, for appellant Eric Nobles
R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, and Chris Ka Sin Chu, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee State of Maine
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
[¶ 1] Eric Nobles appeals from a judgment of conviction of operating under the influence (OUI) (Class C), 29–A M.R.S. § 2411(1–A)(C)(4), (5)(D) (2017), operating after habitual offender revocation (Class C), 29–A M.R.S. § 2557–A(2)(D) (2017), and driving to endanger (Class E), 29–A M.R.S. § 2413(1) (2017), entered by the court (Penobscot County, Lucy, J. ) after a jury trial. Nobles contends that (A) the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after an officer testified that Nobles was on probation at the time of his arrest; (B) the prosecutor committed misconduct by (1) commenting on Nobles's reluctance to speak with the police before and after he was arrested and (2) asking the jury to hold Nobles "accountable" during closing arguments; and (C) the court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the competing harms justification as to the counts of operating under the influence and driving to endanger. We affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] Viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Guyette , 2012 ME 9, ¶ 2, 36 A.3d 916. On July 6, 2016, Nobles was driving his vehicle on a private camp road with a friend in the passenger seat. At around 7:00 p.m., a witness, who had left her camp and was in a pickup truck with her husband and their two grandchildren, observed Nobles's vehicle traveling toward them erratically and at a high rate of speed on the narrow dirt road. His vehicle was fishtailing, and they were forced to veer off the road to avoid being hit. The witness's stepson, who drove away from the witness's camp soon after she left, also encountered Nobles's vehicle barreling down the road and kicking up dust, forcing the stepson to pull off the road to get out of the way.
[¶ 3] The witness and her husband delivered the grandchildren to their mother at the end of the road and then waited there for the vehicle they had seen to pass them again so they could take down the license plate number. After about forty minutes, the witness and her husband heard a vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed and saw Nobles's vehicle traveling toward them from behind. When Nobles reached the end of the road, the witness's husband pointed at him and told him to slow down. The passenger in Nobles's vehicle made a vulgar gesture with his hands and tongue before Nobles's vehicle turned toward town and proceeded down the road.
[¶ 4] The witness and her husband followed Nobles's vehicle to take note of the license plate number and to call the police. Nobles's vehicle was traveling fast down the road ahead of them and suddenly came to a complete stop. They stopped their car behind his. After a couple of minutes, Nobles's vehicle made a quick U-turn around the pickup truck and drove in the opposite direction. While the witness was on the phone with the police, the witness's husband began to turn his pickup around to follow him. At this time, Nobles did two "three-sixties" in the road and took off "like a shot out of a gun" toward State Route 11, a public road leading to the center of town in Millinocket.
[¶ 5] At about 8:00 p.m., after having been notified about the erratically operated vehicle, a Millinocket police officer saw Nobles's vehicle turn off Route 11 into the parking lot of a convenience store. The officer pulled in after Nobles and was later joined by another officer. Both officers observed that Nobles, who was in the driver's seat, had bloodshot eyes and that there was an odor of alcohol emanating from his vehicle and breath. He was uncooperative, belligerent, and unresponsive, except to say that he would exit his vehicle only if the officers brought him a drink of water. During this encounter with law enforcement officers, Nobles offered no explanation for his erratic driving.
[¶ 6] After placing Nobles under arrest, the officers took him to the police station. Once there, he refused to participate in the standard field sobriety tests, to take a breath test, or to sign the form detailing the consequences of his refusal. He still offered no explanation for his actions. When asked for his address, Nobles responded that he was homeless and also stated, "I'm not taking your test," before throwing down the tube to the breath testing machine.
[¶ 7] Nobles was initially charged with a single count of OUI in July 2016, with complaints alleging operating after habitual offender revocation and driving to endanger filed in August. He was charged with all three crimes by indictment in September 2016.
[¶ 8] The court held a jury trial on April 18 and 19, 2017. During opening statements, defense counsel informed the jury that Nobles would be testifying. Counsel stated,
[¶ 9] The witness, the witness's stepson, and the two officers testified for the State at trial. When the arresting officer testified, Nobles objected after the following exchange:
Nobles immediately moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion but provided a curative instruction, before the State resumed examination of the witness: "I instruct the jury to disregard the witness's last answer to [the prosecutor]'s question."
[¶ 10] The prosecutor also asked both officers if Nobles ever mentioned that he was frightened by or was being harassed by the witness and her husband, or if he gave any explanation as to why he was driving on a public road. Both officers testified that he did not, and defense counsel did not raise any objection to this line of questioning.
[¶ 11] After the State presented its case, Nobles testified. He told the jury that he knew at the time of the incident that his license had been revoked. He denied having driven at a high rate of speed before the witness and her husband began following him. He explained that the reason he had driven erratically and onto a public road was because he thought the witness and her husband were chasing him, he had seen something black and shiny in the witness's husband's hand that he thought was a gun, he was scared and concerned for his safety, and he needed to get to a telephone to call the police because neither he nor his passenger had a cellphone with a charged battery. Nobles testified that, although he had driven on the public road specifically to find the police, he did not tell them he was frightened or appear pleased to see them at the convenience store because he suffered from anxiety, and he was confused and scared. He testified that he did not remember yelling at the officers.
[¶ 12] At the close of trial, Nobles requested a jury instruction on the competing harms justification for the charge of operating after license revocation and, eventually, the charge of OUI as well, arguing that he was driving only because he was trying to get away from the greater harm posed by the witness's allegedly threatening husband. The court ruled that the competing harms instruction would be given for the charge of operating after license revocation because that is the only crime that requires operation on a public way as an element. The court declined to give a competing harms instruction regarding the OUI charge because Nobles had admitted to operating on the private way before encountering the witness's and her stepson's vehicles. Nobles did not seek a competing harms instruction regarding the charge of driving to endanger.1
[¶ 13] During his closing argument, the prosecutor made the following statement regarding Nobles's behavior when approached by police:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White
...the broader societal implications of its verdict, and thereby detracted from the jury's actual duty of impartiality."); see also State v. Nobles , 2018 ME 26, ¶¶ 13, 28, 179 A.3d 910 (concluding that there was no obvious error when the prosecutor made a comment about determining the defenda......
-
State v. Carrillo
...by the trial court are sufficient to overcome even significant prejudice from the presentation of inadmissible evidence. See State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, ¶¶ 18-19, 179 A.3d 910 ; see also State v. Tarbox, 2017 ME 71, ¶ 19, 158 A.3d 957 ; State v. Begin, 2015 ME 86, ¶¶ 27-28, 120 A.3d 97 ; A......
-
State v. White
...the statement was "wholly within" the range of permissible comments as defined by State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, 179 A.3d 910. The decision in Nobles is distinguishable, as noted above. It also a close case, decided largely on the obvious error standard. See id. ¶¶ 21, 28. [11] The State ackn......
-
State v. White
...the statement was "wholly within" the range of permissible comments as defined by State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, 179 A.3d 910. The decision in Nobles is distinguishable, as noted above. It also a close case, decided largely on the obvious error standard. See id. ¶¶ 21, 28. [11] The State ackn......