State v. Turner
| Decision Date | 03 March 2001 |
| Citation | 2001 ME 44,766 A.2d 1025 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Leslie TURNER |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Michael E. Povich, District Attorney, Paul F. Cavanaugh II, Asst. Dist. Atty., Calais, for State.
Donald F. Brown, Esq., Bangor, for defendant.
Panel: WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.
[¶ 1] Leslie Turner appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Washington County, Atwood, J.) on a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating a protective order by contacting his son by e-mail in violation of 19-A M.R.S.A. § 4011 (Supp.2000).1 Turner argues that the court erred by admitting copies of correspondence that he had allegedly sent his son prior to the date of the charged violation and that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] The relevant facts may be summarized as follows: Rhonda Flood married Turner in 1982. They had two children together, Benjamin and Jacob, and were divorced in 1993. In May of 1998, Rhonda received a protective order for herself and for her children. The order prohibited Turner from having any contact, direct or indirect, with Rhonda or the children except for supervised visits consistent with the divorce judgment.
[¶ 3] The complaint alleges that Turner violated this order on June 25, 1998 by "having unsupervised contact with Benjamin." On that day, Rhonda testified, Turner contacted Benjamin by e-mail. She also testified that Turner had contacted Benjamin several other times before June 25th by e-mail and by letter. Rhonda explained that when Benjamin would receive an e-mail from Turner, he would show it to her on the computer screen and she would then print a copy.
[¶ 4] In addition to admitting a copy of the June 25th e-mail, the court admitted printed copies of six other e-mails and one handwritten letter that Turner had sent to Benjamin. It instructed the jury that these exhibits were admissible "solely for the purpose of establishing the identity of who sent the June 25 correspondence or to show the defendant's knowledge of the [protective] order or the circumstances by which others might receive his correspondence or to show that his actions were intentional, that is to say purposefully done." Rhonda testified that the documents contain expressions that Turner would have used and refer to personal information that Turner would have known. She explained that the e-mails have Turner's e-mail address in the sender's box and that the handwritten letter contains Turner's handwriting. Officer Rolfe, of the Baileyville Police Department, testified that, after receiving a complaint from Rhonda on May 17th, he warned Turner not to continue making indirect contact by e-mail. Turner sent at least two e-mails and the handwritten letter, however, after this warning.
[¶ 5] Turner argues that the documents Benjamin received prior to the date of the alleged violation should have been excluded either pursuant to Rule 404(b) or 403 of the Maine Rules of Evidence. Rule 404(b) provides that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith." M.R. Evid. 404(b). Such evidence is admissible, however, "for purposes other than to show propensity, such as to demonstrate motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, ... absence of mistake," or the relationship between the parties. State v. DeMass, 2000 ME 4, ¶ 12, 743 A.2d 233, 236. We review the trial court's decision to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) for clear error and under Rule 403 for abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 11. Contrary to Turner's contention, the evidence was properly admitted because it is probative of the identity of the e-mail's author, and because it demonstrates that Turner knew of the protective order and that he acted intentionally. In addition, the evidence is not so voluminous or prejudicial that its exclusion is required under Rule 403.2
[¶ 6] Turner also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hassan
...that he had an arrest record. [¶ 29] We review for clear error a court's decision to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b). State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 5, 766 A.2d 1025.Rule 404(b) prohibits the admission of evidence of past crimes “to prove the character of a person in order to show th......
-
State v. Elliott
...Contact prohibited by paragraph (D) may be established by proof of a variety of actions, such as sending electronic mail, State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, 766 A.2d 1025, or calling the house of a person with whom the protected person had an existing romantic relationship, State v. Smen, 2006 ME......
-
State v. Millay
...the charged offense, but bad acts are admissible to show intent, identity, opportunity, motive, and other similar purposes. See State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 5, 766 A.2d 1025, [¶ 13] Millay's statement was not a direct admission that he had operated under the influence previously, but from......
-
State v. Glover
...marks omitted). We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision whether to exclude evidence pursuant to Rule 403. State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 5, 766 A.2d 1025. However, because Glover did not object to the State's introduction into evidence of his refusal to consent to the ......
-
Evidence at the electronic frontier: introducing e-mail at trial in commercial litigation.
...id. (432.) 202 F.3d 270, No. 98-6421, 2000 WL 32010, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999) (table; text in Westlaw). (433.) Id. at *3-*4. (434.) 766 A.2d 1025 (Me. (435.) Id. at 1026-27. (436.) 2002 WL 312773, at *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 28, 2002) (per curiam) (unpublished opinion). (437.) Id. at *2. See......
-
E-mail for Lawyers: Cause for Celebration and Concern
...project's general contractor constituted misconduct and disqualified employee from receiving unemployment benefits). 17. State v. Turner, 766 A.2d 1025, 1026-27 (Me. 2001) (holding that evidence of defendant's e-mail and written contacts was admissible in proving him guilty of violating a p......