State of Maine v. Pearson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. .' , I·"~ , I " I '- ,~_. ,', ," ',' t-:',. .;. _ ,~ .·..,'1 plaintiff'" \ II " ~J _ '") ..... FleE ,-q STATE OF MAINE, -"- SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-07-1151 "'}~ CuM ~ I r dD')7 ,,~\ ~rt.r t 1 (I lit \;J .-', V ("I """\ 1:., Ii: U I I \ ORDER & DECISION v. ZACKARY PEARSON Defendant (18 2008 BACKGROUND The defendant was charged with four counts of robbery on June 13, 2007 and was indicted on July 6. The State filed a notice of joinder on July 6, joining Pearson's case with those of six other defendants who were also accused of being involved in the robbery. Pearson filed the present motion for relief from prejudicial j,oinder on September 17. For the reasons discussed below, the court denies the motion. DISCUSSION While "the court must balance the general policy in favor of joint trials against the prejudice to a defendant which may result," the court is also afforded "substantial discretion" to grant or deny a motion to sever. State v. Lakin, 2006 ME 64, C}[<]I 7-8, 899 A.2d 777, 779. The burden is on the moving party "to show facts prior to trial that a joint trial would result in prejudice." Id. Here, the defendant has asserted that introduction of certain admissions made by his co-defendants would violate his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, as the United States Supreme Court decided in Bruton v. US., 391 U.s. 123 (1968). The Law Court recently discussed the Bruton holding in Lakin, and reiterated that when defendants are tried together in a single trial, an admission of a non-testifying defendant that implicates a co-defendant may not be used. Id. n.2, 899 A.2d at 778. To do so violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because the co defendant is prevented from cross-examining a non-testifying defendant about the admission. Id. In these cases, it is appropriate to exclude or redact the admission, sever the trials, or empanel multiple juries. Id. <[ 5,899 A.2d at 778. The Law Court upheld the trial court's decision not to sever the trials of the two defendants, however, because the State had agreed not to use either of the inculpatory statements, and the presentation of mutually antagonistic defenses was not a ground for severance. Id. <[<[ 5-13, 899 A.2d at 778-79. In an earlier case, the Law Court discussed several post-Bruton decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and ultimately determined that even when a confession is redacted to exclude reference to a co-defendant, it may inappropriately implicate that co-defendant. State v. Boucher, 1998 ME 209, <[<[ 11-16, 718 A.2d 1092, 1095-96. The Court acknowledged that" a fair deletion of all references, express or implied, to any other defendant is a proper and approved method of avoiding prejudice and the Bruton dilemma." Id. <][ 12, 718 A.2d at 1095 (quoting State v. Wing, 294 A.2d 418, 422 (Me. 1972).) However, because testimony from witnesses indicated that four individuals were involved in the crime and the witnesses named three of the four participants, the deletion of the co-defendant from a defendant's confession was not enough to satisfy the requirements of Bruton, because the confession "obviously referred directly to [the codefendant]." Id. <[ 16, 718 A.2d at 1096. Yet in spite of the Bruton violation, the Court affirmed the conviction because the inappropriately admitted confession was merely 2 cumulative, and "was entirely consistent with the rest of the State's evidence." Id. 'JI'JI 20-21, 718 A.2d at 1097. 1 In this case, there were seven defendants initially charged with robbery. One defendant has already entered a plea and is available to testify. Three of the seven defendants, including the defendant who has entered a plea, gave statements to the police that implicate Pearson in the robbery. If the State sought to admit those statements into evidence through the law enforcement officer who took them, and not through the defendants who made them, Pearson's confrontation clause rights could be violated, as would those of every other defendant implicated by the statement who chooses not to testify. Redacting the statements to exclude any reference to the existence of any other defendant would be appropriate. However, the mere possibility of a Bruton violation does not necessarily require severance (see footnote), and the State may choose to present its case in a way that does not present Bruton problems. Furthermore, the defendant's concerns about Bruton problems can be raised in a motion in limine or can be addressed at trial by the trial judge. CONCLUSION The defendant's motion for relief from prejudicial joinder is DENIED. DATED: November 13, 2007 Joyce \A~ Wheeler, Jus'tice J 1 It is also important to note that the Court upheld the trial court's decision not to sever the trials because the defendant hadn't alleged anything other than the possibility of a Bruton violation. Id.crr 10, 718 A.2d at 1095. Although there was indeed a Bruton violation, it would have been possible for the State to presentthe confession in a way that didn't violate the co-defendant's rights. rd, The only other arguments that Pearson has made for severance are that the statements will directly contradict his defense theory, and that the statements would be inadmissible hearsay if the trials were severed. However, the Law Court has said that mutually antagonistic defenses are not grounds for severance. Lakin, 2006 ME 64, <jl12, 899 A.2d 780. 3 SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, 88. Docket No PORSC-CR-2007-01451 , '~"'. .,1 J,~: ~"9" -P, DOCKET RECORD 04062 ':(','. :,'J82F.1 LEBRASSEUR State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON & LEBRASSEUR, PC 482 CONGRESS ST. SUITE 300 PORTLAND ME 04101 APPOINTED 06/19/2007 PRC~M.~~ I,~ ROBBERY q1 2 ':) '1 17 - A OS/29/2007 SCARBOROUGH 6 5 1 (1 ) (E) Class A 6 5 1 (1 ) (E) Class A OS/24/2007 SCARBOROUGH Charged with COMPLAINT on Suppleme Class B OS/24/2007 SCARBOROUGH Charged with COMPLAINT on Suppleme Class B OS/24/2007 SCARBOROUGH Charged with COMPLAINT on Suppleme l~:.r)nBERY o"l '1 2)4 17 - A (JUS 2 / SCA ROBBERY ,: ," (1 '1 8 i3 4 17 - A 651(1) (B) (1) / SCA ~:()USE~ EUBBERY 1[:;'l17-A 651 (1) (B) (1) / SCA ,':LING DOCUMENT - . ')/ ni\.'1. BOND - CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 05/31/2007 $50,000.00 SURETY BAIL BOND FILED ON 05/31/2007 $50,000 CUMBERLAND [:,:1::,' 13ctiled: OS/29/2007 len Issued: OS/29/2007 f.,':~n Ul,;charged: "',! l'U PARTY. SEE CONDITIONS. Uc\~~ Amc: ',~()Il:lCy: Surety Type: SINGLE County Book ID: 25140 Book Page: 343 Prvdr Name: KELLY L PEARSON Rtrn Name: KELLY L PEARSON r:I'C1U)'. {s): $1)0,000 1 HEARING - Surety Value: INITIAL APPEARANCE SCHEDULED FOR 06/18/2007 @ 8:30 l\;<j~'ICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL C:L-,rge (8): 1,2,3,4 cilJPPc,EJ"'ENTAL FILING COMPLAINT FILED ON 06/13/2007 'oj,-::,;): ;J:: ..\ j" 0 ( ",): 1,2,3,4 iVlOnON FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/19/2007 1, 2 , 3 , 4 Page 1 of 4 Prin~ed on: llil"J/:'UT/ ZACKARY PEARSON PORSC-CR-2007-01~51 DOCKET RECOR;: i'~CT=ON - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 06/19/2007 C:'HOMAS E DELAHANTY II I JUSTICE COpy TO PARTIES/COUNSEL DEFENDANT IS PRSSENTLY INDIGENT AND SHALL RETURN TO COURT ON OR BEFORE 7-31-07 TO BE REEXAMINED AS TO INDIGENCY, _:;:>2"/ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT SHALL SEEK EMPLOYMENT. Party(s): ZACKARY PEARSON !,,''['ORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 06/19/2007 .",,' corney: ROBERT LEBRASSEUR l.'ll"rge (s): 1 ITLARING - " I ;'"" INITIAL APPEARANCE HELD ON 06/18/2007 ,JUtCS F, WHEELER , JUSTICE MEGIN ELAM DA: Reporter: KIMBERLY MCCULLOCH Defendant Present in Court '-iMJIE BAIL CONTINUED WITH ADDED CONDITIONS. '~ ,I BOND - ,JOYCE: RS $50 1000.00 SURETY BAIL BOND CONTINUED AS POSTED ON 06/18/2007 i\ WHEELER , JUSTICE ;lITH ADDED CONDITIONS. i'EARING - RS STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 08/27/2007 @ 11:00 .SUPlJLEf"1ENTAL FILING - INDICTMENT FILED ON 07/06/2007 STATUS CONFERENCE NOT HELD ON 07/06/2007 di'/\Jd:\fC - DEYEKDlU\fT INDICTED. :'1 RS (:I:,:r.'(Je(8): 1,2,3/4 'il"P ING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 08/27/2007 W[',IIAM BRODRICK I @ "':;"9('(IJ): ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ON 07/11/2007 U[':m". F1LING - NOTICE OF JOINDER FILED BY STATE ON 07/06/2007 J:)INED WITH CR07-l410, 'c, 07-1441, 07-1409, '~LllTle(s): 1 :':'\'; [l!e] - 07-1444, 07-1408, 07-144]. Id-cRAIGNMENT HELD ON 08/27/2007 , .I ,L ',rl\ci~ r~: 1 2/3/4 BfWDRICK, :. ne'; : , ," JUSTICE HEATHER GONZALES ['1ECIN ELAM ~AIVED, ,j "::J:j(.cJT, (:1,',,':1'/,'3): 0, Reporter: JANETTE COOK Present in Court ','Hldd'IC _ 7 1,2,],4 'l:/'.,1\INC - :1' 11: 00 in Room No. JUSTICE DEFENDANT INFORMED OF C~ARGES, COpy OF INDICTMENT/INFORMATION GIVEN TO 21 DAYS TO FILE 1I10TIONS. SAME BAIL CONTINUED. RS 1,2,],4 NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDA"JT ON 08/27/2007 :.\ :C;C1D - >:11 '. [{,fii $50, 000.00 SURETY BAIL BOND CONTINUED AS POSTED ON 08/27/2007 BRO:JRICK, JUSTICE Page 2 of 4 Printed on: 11/L9/ ~) ~l , ZACKARY PS./'I,RSCl" PORSC-CR-2007-0~4~~ DOCKET RECO;:.r: POSTED. WITH CONDITIONS. A~READY :~/\)4/2() " TRIAL - RS DOCKET CALL SCHEDULED FOR 02/22/2008 ROLAND A COLE , !,iCllDN - @ 8:30 in Room No. 11 JUSTICE MOTION FOR FUNDS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/03/2007 ~_JARrrE '['WN ":: MOTION FOR FUNDS GRANTED ON 08/07/2007 BRODRICK, \~LIAloJ\ JUSTICE (,'OPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL EX-PARTE TOTAL AMOUNT APPROVED FOR A ,'!dVATE INVESTIGATOR $500.00. MRP ,:' 2 GC: .~. ella r'-j e ( s): I, 2, 3 / 4 TRU..L - DOCKET CALL SCHEDULED FOR 02/08/2008 FJJL,\ND A COLE , '.'Ld,-'')e ('0): @ 8 :30 in Room No. 11 JUSTICE 1,2,3,4 MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/14/2007 . :Oll i:I'iCicge(s): 1,2,3,4 [oJiOTICN - L " MOTION RELIEF PREJUDICIAL JOIN FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/14/2007 ; !Li\l{I NG MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 11/06/2007 @ 2:00 in Room No. TO PARTIES/COUNSEL !'iCCfICE ';j i'L.\RING - '. ¢"1,\ MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 09/28/2007 ,'ge (s) : 1,2,3,4 '\! .\c,' rNG . r' ,,: : c;) ,I ,,!UNG MOTION RELIEF PREJUDICIAL JOIN SCHEDULED FOR 11/06/2007 @ 2:00 in Room No. 1,2,3,4 MOTION RELIEF PREJUDICr./'I,L JOIN NOTICE SENT ON 09/28/2007 MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 11/06/2007 'T[':;,,<lNG ,50':e" A IWEELER , '·.l L"'lilCY: JUSTICE ROBERT LEBRASSEUR cWLIA SHEfUDAN l.J[~: :)~< 7 Reporter: PENNY PHILBRICK· CARVER ,-ndant Present in Court HOUR HEARING i,e:1i 11:' [NU - TSK MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 11/21/2007 @ 1:00 in Room No, TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 7 TSK MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 11/15/2007 KELLEY '[!\ (8): I,l' 'i,')" ."~ MOTION RELIEF PREJUDICIAL JOIN UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 11/06/2007 - h ASSISTANT CLERK-E I 1,2,3,4 WHE~LER , JUSTICE '('I.' 0'. : .\~;,l::'-:.J\.::(3): ';,;C; ~ 1,2/3,4 ['lOTION RELIEF PREJUDICIAL JOIN NOT HELD ON 11/06/2007 WHEELER , JUSTICE [0rn~/: ROBERT LEBRASSEUR Page 3 of 4 Printed on: 11/10/ ZACKARY PEARS)I,; PORSC-CR-2007-014SJ DOCKET RECOF= iJf.: JULIA SHERIDAN D0fe~d3nt !IEI\RING - Reporter: PENNY PHILBRICK-CARVER Present in Court MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOT HELD ON 11/15/2007 ::: 'r-IIORA/IN BY PHONE MRP ,; . ,7 Chi} r'ge ( s): 1, 2 , 3 , 4 MOTION TO SUPPRESS WITHDRAWN ON 11/15/2007 :!O'lTON - BY ?HONS MRP /';'- (':,.1'.9,,(6): ";"011 ;c. ':c';~ A 1,2,3,4 MOTION RELIEF PREJUDICIAL JOIN DENIED ON 11/14/2007 vlHEELER , JUDGE Clerk Page 4 of 4 Printed on: 11/1~/~~

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.