State of Maine v. Steven E. Clarke

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Steven E. Clarke’s convictions for tampering with a witness and violating a condition of release. The court held that evidence of Clarke’s statements suggesting that a witness miss court or remain silent was sufficient to support the witness-tampering conviction, and it declined to consider Clarke’s unpreserved challenge to the indictment.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient for reasonable jurors to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clarke attempted to induce a witness to withhold testimony, information, or evidence.
2. A conviction for witness tampering under section 454(1)(A)(2) does not require proof that the defendant expressly threatened the witness, that the witness felt threatened, or that the defendant successfully affected the witness's testimony.
3. The court declined to address Clarke's challenge to the indictment because he neither challenged the indictment before trial nor sought a bill of particulars.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Clarke's conviction for tampering with a witness under 17-A M.R.S. § 454(1)(A)(2).
2. Whether Clarke's challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment could be considered when he failed to raise it before trial or seek a bill of particulars.

Disposition

affirmed