State of Maine v. Gregory Nisbet

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Gregory Nisbet’s conviction for violating a public safety fire rule incorporated from the 2009 National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code. The court held that the Code’s requirements concerning a window’s “clear opening” and operation without “special effort” were not unconstitutionally vague. It also held that the State’s failure to disclose an enforcement memorandum did not constitute a material Brady violation because the evidence could not have established compliance with the applicable window-size requirements.

Holdings

1. Life Safety Code section 24.2.2.3.3 is not unconstitutionally vague. The terms "clear opening" and "special effort," construed according to their ordinary meanings and in context, provide ordinary people with sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct and do not invite arbitrary enforcement.
2. Nisbet's lack-of-notice argument does not establish a due process violation because the Life Safety Code provision was not vague and citizens are generally charged with knowledge of the law.
3. The nondisclosure did not require a new trial because, although the memorandum was favorable to Nisbet and had been suppressed, it was not material under Brady.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support Nisbet's conviction. Any error in applying the ordinary Life Safety Code standard rather than the memorandum's more lenient standard was harmless, and the contractor's testimony supported the finding that Nisbet knowingly violated the regulation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Life Safety Code section 24.2.2.3.3 is unconstitutionally vague because it uses the terms "clear opening" and "special effort" and because Nisbet allegedly lacked notice of the requirements.
2. Whether the State's failure to disclose a 2013 Fire Marshal memorandum violated Brady v. Maryland and required a new trial.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Nisbet's conviction, including whether the State had to prove that the building was constructed after 1976 and whether the contractor's testimony established that Nisbet knowingly violated the Life Safety Code.

Disposition

affirmed