State v. Caswell

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Patricia Caswell’s conviction for a third offense of operating under the influence. The court held that the evidence did not generate a competing harms justification because it failed to establish an imminent threat of physical harm, particularly after Caswell stopped at a gas station and observed police officers. The court also upheld the exclusion of expert testimony concerning Caswell’s psychological state.

Holdings

1. A competing-harms justification is not generated by the defendant's subjective belief alone that imminent physical harm exists; the evidence must demonstrate as a fact that physical harm was imminently threatened. Caswell's evidence did not satisfy that requirement, particularly because there was no evidence that her attacker was following her and any justification for fleeing the residence had evaporated when she stopped at the Irving station and observed police officers.
2. The trial court did not err in excluding the psychologist's testimony because the testimony could not supply the objective evidence of an imminent physical threat required to generate the competing-harms justification.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Caswell, generated a competing-harms justification under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103(1) for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence.
2. Whether the trial court properly excluded psychologist Dr. Brian Rines's testimony offered in support of the competing-harms justification.

Disposition

affirmed