State v. True, Docket: And–15–593

Decision Date05 January 2017
Docket NumberDocket: And–15–593
Parties STATE of Maine v. William TRUE
CourtMaine Supreme Court

James P. Howaniec, Esq. (orally), Lewiston, for appellant William True

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, Donald W. Macomber, Asst. Atty. Gen., and

John Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

SAUFLEY, C.J.

[¶ 1] Twenty-year-old Romeo Parent was killed in April 2013. He had been stabbed in the back of the neck, beaten, and choked. William True was charged with, and found guilty by a jury of, the intentional or knowing, or depraved indifference murder of Parent.1 True appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the court (MG Kennedy, J. ). See 17–A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A), (B) (2015). He argues that the judgment should be vacated because he was deprived of a fair trial due to allegedly perjured testimony from certain of the State's witnesses. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Westgate , 2016 ME 145, ¶ 5, 148 A.3d 716. During the weekend of April 6 and 7, 2013, True was in jail after Parent informed the police that the two of them had committed a robbery. On Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at about 7:40 p.m., Nathan Morton2 and Michael McNaughton,3 who were known to both Parent and True, picked Parent up in a pharmacy parking lot in Auburn in Morton's vehicle. McNaughton had planned to kill Parent for being a "snitch." Morton, the driver, then drove to the home of True's friend Eric Leighton on James Street in Auburn and picked up True, who had been released from jail.4

[¶ 3] Morton drove to a secluded location on South Mountain Road in Greene. True and McNaughton exited the car with Parent, and the three went into the woods while Morton, who is disabled, waited in the car. Once in the woods, McNaughton stabbed Parent in the back of the neck with a screwdriver and used a brake cable to choke him repeatedly while True punched and kicked Parent. Although Parent bled only a little from the stabbing, a small amount of his blood got on the leg of True's jeans. True injured his foot, and it bled. Parent died due to the constriction of blood vessels in his neck.

[¶ 4] Morton drove away with True and McNaughton at about 9:20 p.m. He dropped True off near his friend Theodore Gagnon's house. During the next morning, April 10, True returned to Leighton's residence in Auburn looking for a duffel bag. He obtained large garbage bags from Leighton. True left Leighton's apartment and got in the car with Morton and McNaughton, after which Morton drove to pick up bedsheets from another friend. The three went to Morton's residence, where they waited until dark and then went to Greene to move Parent's body.

[¶ 5] When they arrived in Greene, True and McNaughton cut the shirt and pants off Parent's body, bound Parent's hands and feet with strips of sheet fabric, wrapped Parent's body in garbage bags, and placed his body on a sheet in Morton's trunk. Morton drove to Jug Stream in Monmouth, where True and McNaughton threw Parent's body into the water from above a dam. They later threw the sheet out the window of the car.

[¶ 6] Morton dropped True off near Leighton's home. Leighton called the police when True attempted to get into his house. True was arrested by police at 12:24 a.m. because he was violating a curfew imposed as a condition of bail. Police investigators found Parent's body in Jug Stream on Friday, April 12, 2013.

[¶ 7] In July 2014, True was charged by indictment with intentional or knowing, or depraved indifference murder, 17–A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A), (B) ; conspiracy to commit intentional murder (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2015) ; and hindering apprehension or prosecution (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 753(1–B)(C)(1) (2015).

[¶ 8] An eleven-day jury trial was held from December 3 through 17, 2014. The State presented testimony from multiple members of state and local law enforcement; an employee of a youth outreach center frequented by Parent and True; the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy of Parent's body; the Maine State Crime Lab personnel who examined the physical evidence; Morton; Leighton; Gagnon; and many friends of True, McNaughton, and Parent who socialized and used drugs with the three of them around the time of the murder. Many of the friend witnesses, including Morton, Leighton, and Gagnon, whose testimony True now challenges as perjured, were subjected to intense cross-examination by defense counsel, highlighting their drug use at the time and the inconsistencies in their statements to police and others.

[¶ 9] Morton conceded, during extensive cross-examination, that he told police conflicting stories on various occasions and did not mention True being involved in the murder at all until reaching an agreement with the State to resolve his own pending charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and hindering apprehension or prosecution. As a result of that agreement, Morton received a sentence of twenty years in prison, all but ten years suspended, for conspiracy to commit murder, and a concurrent ten-year sentence for hindering apprehension or prosecution. Leighton also acknowledged inconsistent statements and lies that he told the police, and Gagnon admitted that he had not—even when previously testifying under oath—told anybody about True's statement that Parent had been "taken care of."

[¶ 10] True did not testify. Nor did he present additional witnesses or other evidence.

[¶ 11] The jury found True guilty of murder and hindering apprehension or prosecution, and not guilty of conspiracy to commit intentional murder. True moved to dismiss or for a new trial on multiple grounds. As one ground for the motion, he asserted that the State had presented testimony from Morton, Leighton, and Gagnon that it knew or should have known was perjured. The State moved to dismiss True's motion for a new trial as untimely, and the parties supplied memoranda concerning the motions. In his memorandum, True argued that Morton had told fellow inmates, before True's trial, that he was lying about True to get a good deal from the State and that he had bragged after the trial that he had been responsible for True's conviction and sentence. True offered an affidavit from an inmate in support of his motion. Subpoenas and writs of habeas corpus were issued, and Morton was appointed counsel, in anticipation of multiple witnesses testifying regarding True's motion.

[¶ 12] On November 3, 2015, True withdrew his motion to dismiss and for a new trial in exchange for (1) the State's agreement to seek the twenty-five year minimum mandatory sentence for a murder conviction, see 17–A M.R.S. § 1251 (2015), with a concurrent ten-year sentence on the charge for hindering apprehension or prosecution, and (2) the State's dismissal of all other known criminal charges—specifically, a burglary and theft indictment and a bail violation charge. At the plea and sentencing hearing, True represented that he did not intend to appeal from his conviction but did not waive his right to do so. The State indicated at the sentencing that, despite True's right to appeal, any issues arising from the withdrawn motion would not be "preserved" for appeal. The State did not say, and the court did not inform True, that his withdrawal of the motion would operate as a full waiver of his right to press the issue of possible perjury. The court informed True that he retained the rights to appeal from the judgment of conviction, to petition for review of the sentence, and to petition for post-conviction review. The court accepted the sentencing agreement and sentenced True to twenty-five years in prison for murder and ten years in prison for hindering apprehension or prosecution, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence. The court also ordered True to pay fifty dollars to the Victims' Compensation Fund.

[¶ 13] True brought the present appeal. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2015) ; M.R. App. P. 2.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 14] We first address the State's argument that True waived the issues he now raises on appeal because he withdrew his motion to dismiss or for a new trial, which raised the same issues of witness perjury, in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and a sentence at the mandatory minimum of twenty-five years. Waiver occurs when a defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intentionally relinquishes or abandons a known right. See State v. Tuplin , 2006 ME 83, ¶ 14, 901 A.2d 792. It appears on the record presented that True voluntarily, knowingly, and intentionally opted not to follow through with his motion to dismiss or for a new trial as part of a negotiated plea agreement. We would ordinarily determine, therefore, that he waived the opportunity to challenge the issues that he had raised in his post-trial motion by intentionally withdrawing that motion and thereby precluding any evidentiary hearing that would determine which of the witnesses' varying stories—delivered under oath—might be untruthful. See State v. Foster , 2016 ME 154, ¶ 10, 149 A.3d 542 ; cf. United States v. Gates , 698 F.Supp.2d 212, 218–19 (D. Me. 2010) (denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea when the defendant strategically decided to plead guilty during trial as part of an agreement with the government, rather than test a witness's testimony through trial).

[¶ 15] However, when fundamental constitutional rights are at stake, "every reasonable presumption is made against a finding of waiver." Tuplin , 2006 ME 83, ¶ 16, 901 A.2d 792. Despite True's withdrawal of the motion to dismiss or for a new trial and the apparent waiver of the claims he raised in that motion, we will address the issue he raises as an unpreserved claim of error because True may have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. McNaughton
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • August 1, 2017
    ...perjured testimony. McNaughton's argument is essentially identical to the one we addressed at length recently in True's appeal. See State v. True , 2017 ME 2, ¶¶ 16–22, 153 A.3d 106.As a threshold matter, a defendant must satisfy the basic and fundamental burden of demonstrating that the in......
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • January 25, 2018
    ...15, 13 A.3d 777. "Waiver occurs when a defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intentionally relinquishes or abandons a known right." State v. True , 2017 ME 2, ¶ 14, 153 A.3d 106 ; see Shatzer , 559 U.S. at 104, 130 S.Ct. 1213. Nevertheless, a waiver of a constitutional right need not be exp......
  • Philbrook v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • July 20, 2017
    ...prejudice with the trial court, however, and therefore we review that issue only for obvious error. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 52(b) ; State v. True , 2017 ME 2, ¶ 15 & n.6, 153 A.3d 106.[¶ 14] Although counsel was ill during the trial, the court was not persuaded that the illness resulted in inef......
  • M & T Bank v. Plaisted
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • August 16, 2018
    ...of Exhibit E, the trial court was deprived of the opportunity to weigh this potentially conflicting or inconsistent evidence. See State v. True , 2017 ME 2, ¶ 19, 153 A.3d 106 (stating that "the weighing of conflicting or inconsistent evidence ... falls solidly within the province of the ........
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT