State v. Plante
| Citation | 623 A.2d 166 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Michael PLANTE. |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1993 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
David W. Crook, Dist. Atty., Alan P. Kelley, Deputy Dist. Atty., Augusta, for plaintiff.
Ronald W. Bourget, Bourget & Bourget, Augusta, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS, RUDMAN and DANA, JJ.
Michael Plante appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Browne, A.R.J.) convicting him of aggravated assault, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 208 (1983). Plante challenges two of the court's rulings on the admission of evidence, the court's instruction to the jury on the issue of self-defense, and the court's order that he pay restitution to the victim as a condition of probation. Although we affirm Plante's conviction, we conclude that the court improperly imposed restitution. Accordingly, we remand for further consideration of the question of restitution.
On the evening of June 8, 1990, Linwood Hart and Michael Plante attended a high school graduation party in West Gardiner. At some point, Plante approached Hart and began a conversation and attempted to goad him into a fight. Hart said that he did not want to fight and walked away. Ten minutes later, Plante again approached Hart and asked him for a light for his cigarette. When Hart replied that he did not have one, Plante began pushing him and said that they would "go find one." Hart then broke Plante's grip on him and began to walk away. When Hart looked back to see where Plante was, Plante punched him three times in the face. Hart underwent reconstructive surgery the next day to repair broken facial bones.
Plante contends that the court erred in admitting over his objection pursuant to M.R.Evid. 403 a post-operative photograph depicting Hart's facial injuries. We disagree. "[P]hotographs are admissible if they are true and accurate depictions of what they purport to represent, if they are relevant to some issue involved in the litigation, and if their probative value is not outweighed by any tendency they may have toward unfair prejudice." State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58, 75 (1981). See also State v. Condon, 468 A.2d 1348, 1350 (Me.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204, 104 S.Ct. 2385, 81 L.Ed.2d 344 (1984). The photograph, offered to show the extent of Hart's injuries, was highly probative of whether Plante caused Hart serious bodily injury, an element of aggravated assault as defined in section 208(1)(A) of the criminal code. The fact that the photograph was taken after surgery does not, as Plante suggests, diminish its probative value with respect to whether Hart suffered serious bodily injury.
Plante also contends that the court erred in failing to exclude from evidence, as a sanction for the State's violation of the discovery rules, the shirt Hart was wearing on the night of the altercation. Pursuant to M.R.Crim.P. 16(b)(1), discovery is limited to information in the possession or control of the attorney for the State, his staff, or "any official or employee of this state or any political subdivision thereof who regularly reports or with reference to the particular case has reported to the attorney for the state's office." It is clear from the record that the shirt was in the possession of Hart, not the police. Indeed, the State requested a recess for the purpose of determining whether the shirt still existed. The function of Rule 16(b) is to make available to the defense material within the control of the State. See State v. Smith, 400 A.2d 749, 757 (Me.1979). "Where material is ... equally accessible to both sides and not in the possession or control of the attorney for the state, Rule 16 will not require the state to ferret out the material and turn it over to defense counsel." 1 Cluchey & Seitzinger, Maine Criminal Practice § 16.1, at IV-88 (1992). Because the State did not commit a discovery violation, Plante's argument is without merit.
It is well-settled that "once the issue of self-defense is generated by the evidence, the burden rests on the State to disprove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. McKenzie, 605 A.2d 72, 74 (Me.1992). While instructing the jury on the issue of self-defense, the court stated that once the defendant has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bickart
...by any tendency it may have toward unfair prejudice." State v. Kalex, 2002 ME 26, ¶ 11, 789 A.2d 1286, 1289-90 (citing State v. Plante, 623 A.2d 166, 167 (Me.1993)). We review this determination for an abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 10, 789 A.2d at [¶ 37] In Kalex, we concluded that the trial c......
-
State v. Burkhart
...Osborne, 775 So.2d 607 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2000); Commonwealth v. Beauchamp, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 591, 732 N.E.2d 311 (Mass.2000); State v. Plante, 623 A.2d 166 (Me.1993); State v. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175 (Minn.1997); State v. Santamaria, 145 N.H. 138, 756 A.2d 589 (2000); State v. Garcia, 18 P.3d ......
-
State v. Addison
...N.E.2d 717 (Ind.App.1999); State v. Ceaser, 585 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 1998); State v. Carter, 227 La. 820, 80 So.2d 420 (1955); State v. Plante, 623 A.2d 166 (Me.1993); Johnson v. State, 749 So.2d 369 (Miss.App. 1999); State v. Warren, 9 Neb.App. 60, 608 N.W.2d 617 (2000); State v. McMinn, 141 N......
-
State v. Kalex
...involved in the litigation, and its probative value is not outweighed by any tendency it may have toward unfair prejudice. State v. Plante, 623 A.2d 166, 167 (Me.1993). [¶ 12] We stated that an array of "mug shots" including a photograph of the defendant was inadmissible pursuant to Rule 40......