State of Maine v. Reginald Dube

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed Reginald Dube’s convictions for gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and furnishing liquor to a minor. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dube’s eve-of-trial motion in limine and motion to continue, allowing the State to participate in the related hearing, or denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The court affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. A party seeking a subpoena duces tecum under Maine Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(d) must make a preliminary showing that the subpoena is justified, including that the request is made in good faith and is not a fishing expedition. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dube's request because his speculation that the records might reveal a motive to fabricate was insufficient.
2. A trial court may consider an ex parte application for pretrial production under a subpoena duces tecum in limited circumstances when a defendant asserts that making the required showing would reveal trial strategy. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to participate because Dube did not make such an assertion and had already disclosed his defense theory in the motion.
3. A party seeking a continuance must show substantial reasons why granting it would further justice, and a denial is reversible only when it adversely prejudices substantial rights. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dube's eve-of-trial motion to continue.
4. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, rationally supported the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, the motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied and the convictions were affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Dube's motion in limine seeking subpoenas for the victim's protected medical and mental-health records.
2. Whether the trial court violated Dube's constitutional rights by allowing the State to participate in the hearing on his motions.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Dube's motion to continue the trial.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Dube's convictions and whether the motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted.

Disposition

affirmed