State of Maine v. Buddy Robinson

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed Buddy Robinson’s murder conviction and claims of prosecutorial misconduct and error in responding to the jury’s request for a read-back of testimony. The court concluded that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, including improper argument, but held that the misconduct did not create a reasonable probability of affecting the verdict. The court affirmed the conviction.

Holdings

1. The prosecutor committed misconduct by invoking his prior homicide-prosecution experience and suggesting that the defense theory had failed in other cases, because the argument invited the jury to rely on information outside the evidence and disparaged the defense. However, the unpreserved misconduct did not constitute obvious error warranting reversal because Robinson failed to show a reasonable probability that it affected the outcome.
2. The prosecutor's alleged conduct was wrongful if it occurred, and feigning sleep was sophomoric and unprofessional, but the trial court did not clearly err in finding or concluding that the conduct did not affect the verdict to the required degree. The denial of a new trial was therefore proper.
3. Considering the alleged misconduct cumulatively and in context, Robinson received a fair trial and the aggregate impact of the misconduct did not affect the jury's verdict or deprive him of due process.
4. The trial court did not commit obvious error by asking the jury to clarify or narrow its request for a read-back of more than ninety pages of testimony. The court did not deny the request and acted within its discretion to clarify the scope and procedure for the read-back.

Questions Presented

1. Whether prosecutorial comments in opening statement and closing argument, including references to the prosecutor's experience and prior murder prosecutions, constituted misconduct amounting to obvious error and requiring a new trial.
2. Whether the prosecutor's alleged gestures, mouthing of answers to defense counsel's rhetorical questions, and feigned sleeping during defense counsel's closing argument deprived Robinson of a fair trial.
3. Whether the cumulative effect of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprived Robinson of a fair trial.
4. Whether the trial court committed obvious error by responding to the jury's broad request for a read-back by asking the jury to identify or narrow the requested testimony rather than immediately conducting the read-back.

Disposition

affirmed