State v. Roman (1993)

See, e.g., State v. Martin, 242 Neb. 116 , 493 N.W.2d 191, 194-196 (1992) (in prosecution of defendant for sexual assault of minor daughter, daughter’s testimony regarding defendant’s uncharged sexual misconduct with her held admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove defendant’s motive to commit charged offense); State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 98-99 (Me.1993) (in prosecution of defendant for sexual assault of 8-year-old female, evidence of defendant’s uncharged sexual misconduct w…

“Prejudice, in this context, means an undue tendency to move the fact finders to decide the issue on an improper basis . . . .” State v. Dean, 589 A.2d 929, 934 (Me. 1991) (quotation marks omitted). [¶10] “The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice . . . .” State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 100 (Me. 1993) (quotation marks omitted); see M.R.

“Prejudice, in- this context, means an undue tendency to move the fact finders to decide the issue on an improper basis ,... ” State v. Dean, 589 A.2d 929, 934 (Me. 1991) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 10] “The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice .... ” State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 100 (Me. 1993) (quotation marks omitted); see M.R.

State v. Poulos, 1998 ME 43, ¶ 4 , 707 A.2d 1307 ; State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 98 (Me. 1993). * [¶ 14] Here, the State limited its use of the evidence from the events of February 11 to permissible ■ uses, specifically, Anderson’s motive, knowledge, and intent.

In embarrassing sex crimes, where a child would be hesitant to testify, leading questions may be particularly appropriate." State v. Moore, 377 A.2d 1365, 1366 (Me. 1977) (prosecutor "reframed and rephrased" his questions to a ten-year- old victim because of objections by the defendant); see also State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 101 (Me. 1993) ("State is accorded much latitude in attempting to elicit relevant testimony from a child witness."); State v. Rouselle, 559 A.2d 779, 78…

See State v. Griffin, 642 A.2d 1332, 1334 (Me.1994) (testimony from corrections officer of threats made to a police officer went decisively to the question of the defendant’s motive to threaten police officer); State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 99 (Me.1993) (evidence of prior uncharged sexual contact with victim probative of defendant’s motive, i.e., attraction toward victim); State v. DeLong, 505 A.2d 803, 806 (Me.1986) (same); State v. Leone, 581 A.2d 394, 400 (Me.1990) (eviden…

The degree of certainty goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence.” State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 100 (Me.1993) (quoting State v. Hebert, 480 A.2d 742, 749 (Me.1984)).

The dissenting opinion in Pavlacka cites many of these cases including: State v. Martin, 242 Neb. 116 , 493 N.W.2d 191, 194-96 (1992); State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 98-99 (Me.1993); State v. Tobin, 602 A.2d 528, 531-32 (R.I.1992); State v. Plymesser, 172 Wis.2d 583 , 493 N.W.2d 367 , 372-73 (1992); Brown v. State, 817 P.2d 429, 433-34 (Wyo.1991).

See State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 101 (Me. 1993) (quotation marks omitted).

See State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 99 (Me.1993) ("[I]n the absence of a request to the court to provide a limiting instruction [on the jury's use of evidence of a prior bad act], `we can assume that counsel concluded that a limiting instruction would have overemphasized the importance of the evidence and decided to forego the request for strategic reasons.'" (quoting State v. Rogers, 389 A.2d 36, 38 , (Me.1978))). [¶ 12] The evidence of the prior act was not so unfairly prejud…

See State v. Roman , 622 A.2d 96 , 99 (Me. 1993) ("[I]n the absence of a request to the court to provide a limiting instruction, we can assume that counsel concluded that a limiting instruction would have overemphasized the importance of the evidence and decided to forego the request for strategic reasons." (quotation marks omitted) ).

See State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 99 (Me.1993); State v. Rogers, 389 A.2d 36, 38 (Me.1978).

See State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 98-99 (Me.1993); State v. Young, 560 A.2d 1095, 1096 (Me.1989); State v. Lewisohn, 379 A.2d 1192, 1201 (Me.1977).

See State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96, 100 (Me.1993). [¶ 7] Cochran argues that the court erred in preventing him from going into the details of the alleged offense during the competency hearing.

See State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96 , 98 n. 3 (Me.1993).