State v. Robinson

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
• Writing for the Court: LEVY, J.
• Citation: 803 A.2d 452,2002 ME 136
• Decision Date: 15 August 2002
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Frank ROBINSON.

803 A.2d 452
2002 ME 136

STATE of Maine
v.
Frank ROBINSON

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: May 7, 2002.

Decided: August 15, 2002.

803 A.2d 454

Norman R. Croteau, District Attorney, Deborah Potter Cashman, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Auburn, for State

James P. Howanieac, (orally), Howanieac & Associates, P.A., Lewiston, for defendant.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.

LEVY, J.

[¶ 1] Frank Robinson appeals from the judgment of conviction for gross sexual assault, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(A) (Supp.2001),¹ entered in the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Gorman, J.) following a jury trial. Robinson contends that the court erred by excluding evidence, pursuant to Rules 412 and 403 of the Maine Rules of Evidence, that the victim had been sexually assaulted by another man prior to the sexual assault for which Robinson was charged. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] The testimony presented at trial and the procedural history may be summarized as follows: Rebecca Brown spent the evening of March 27, 2000 drinking at a party held in her friends' apartment in Lewiston. She became extremely intoxicated while at the party and was possibly drugged without her knowledge. She remembered leaving the party by herself sometime before 1:00 a.m. Brown testified that the next thing she remembered was finding herself inside Robinson's apartment, also in Lewiston but across town from the location of the party, trying to unlock the door to get out. She did not know Robinson at the time, nor did she

803 A.2d 455

know how she ended up inside his apartment. She testified that Robinson prevented her from unlocking the door and then sexually assaulted her

[¶ 3] Dr. Weincek, of the Central Maine Medical Center, examined Brown, took a blood sample, and collected a semen sample from her vagina and thigh. Brown reported the incident to an officer at the hospital and later went to the Lewiston Police Department to give a description of her assailant. She identified Robinson from a photo line-up.

[¶ 4] Robinson admitted to the investigating detective that Brown had been in his apartment on the night of the alleged assault, but he claimed that he had not touched her. Robinson consented to have a blood sample taken.

[¶ 5] Robinson was indicted on one count of gross sexual assault. Prior to trial, Robinson moved in limine to admit evidence of the fact that Brown had been sexually assaulted by her ex-boyfriend while at the party at her friends' apartment. Robinson asserted that the evidence of the prior sexual assault was relevant because the traumatic nature of the first assault established that Brown could not accurately recall the events of the second alleged assault, and the evidence established an alternative source for the semen found on Brown. The court denied the motion relying on Rules 412 and 403 of the Maine Rules of Evidence.

[¶ 6] At trial, however, Ivan Boudreau, the evidence and property manager of the Lewiston Police Department, testified in response to a question by the State that he had transported two blood samples, not including Brown's blood sample, to the State Police Crime Laboratory in Augusta. Robinson's attorney insisted that this testimony opened the door for the admission of evidence relating to Brown's past sexual behavior. After considerable discussion out of the presence of the jury, the court determined that the best way to explain why two blood samples, not one, were transported for analysis was to allow a State's witness to explain that there was a second blood sample for another individual who was a possible source of the semen. The court, however, did not agree that the testimony had opened the door for admission of the details of the prior rape. Based on the court's revised ruling, the State asked Detective Theiss, the investigating officer, whether Brown may have had sexual contact with someone other than Robinson:

Q. As part of your investigation did you learn that Miss Brown may have had sexual contact with someone other than Mr. Robinson in the 12 hours preceding her reported assault?

A. Yes.

Q. And based on that information did your investigation lead you to require another blood sample?

A. Yes.

Q. And who did you get that blood sample from?

A. [Brown's ex-boyfriend].

Q. And that was the sample collected in the same fashion that you collected [Robinson's sample]?

A. Yes.

[¶ 7] Teresa Calicchio, a forensic DNA analyst for the Maine State Police Crime Laboratory, compared the DNA extracted from the semen sample with DNA extracted from three separate blood samples taken from Robinson, Brown, and Brown's ex-boyfriend. Calicchio testified that the predominant DNA profile obtained from the semen sample matched Robinson's blood sample and that the minor DNA profile matched Brown's profile. She testified that the ex-boyfriend's DNA profile did not match the profiles taken from the semen

803 A.2d 456

sample. Calicchio testified that the probability that the semen came from someone other than Robinson was one in 392 trillion

[¶ 8] In his closing argument, Robinson argued, among other things, that his blood sample may have been mistakenly switched with the blood sample taken from Brown's ex-boyfriend. The jury returned a guilty verdict, however, and the court entered judgment on the verdict.² Robinson then timely filed the present appeal.

II. ISSUE

[¶ 9] The issue presented is whether the court erred in applying Rules 412 and 403 of the Maine Rules of Evidence so as to exclude evidence of the details of the first sexual assault against the victim when offered to establish (1) that the victim could not accurately recall the events of the second sexual assault and (2) an alternative source for the semen found on the victim.

III. DISCUSSION

[¶ 10] Rule 412 of the Maine Rules of Evidence provides:

(a) In a civil or criminal case in which

...