State of Maine v. Nathan P. Tarbox (Errata)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Errata. Go to corrected Opinion
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2017 ME 71 Docket: Yor-16-125 Argued: February 8, 2017 Decided: April 18, 2017 Corrected: April 20, 2017 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, AND HUMPHREY, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. NATHAN P. TARBOX ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court certified on April 18, 2017, is amended as follows: The last sentence of paragraph eleven is amended to read as follows: Thus, the prosecutor’s statement to the jurors that they had heard “nothing to contest” the State’s case was, at the very least, an ambiguous, indirect reference to Tarbox’s election not to testify, and, therefore, was improper. Paragraph sixteen is amended to read as follows: Given these circumstances, we conclude that Tarbox has failed to demonstrate that the State’s single, ambiguous comment on his choice not to testifymisconduct was so highly prejudicial that it tainted the proceedings and virtually deprived him of a fair trial. The original opinion on the Judicial Branch website has been replaced with the opinion as corrected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
