Maine Joins Other Jurisdictions Allowing Jury Instructions for Eyewitness Identification

After considering the growing body of scientific research regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification, the ban against trial judges giving jury instructions on this topic was lifted

State v. Mahmoud, 2016 BL 264503, Me., No. And-15-147, 8/16/16.

The Maine Supreme Court joined a multitude of other jurisdictions in allowing trial judges to give jury instructions regarding the fallibility of eyewitness identification. This overturns a ban to such instructions that has been in place since 1989. The court held, “In light of the voluminous body of scientific research that has emerged regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification, and the subsequent evolving trend among both state and federal courts to instruct juries on this matter, we conclude that it is permissible, where relevant, to instruct jurors on the reliability of eyewitness identification.”

The court did add one caveat, that these instructions would not need to be used in every case. One example the court provided was that such instructions are unnecessary when the identified person was already known to the witness.

Similar instructions are allowed in Utah under the Model Utah Jury Instructions, Second Edition. 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Mahmoud_No_Docket_And15147_2016_BL_264503_Me_Aug_16_2016_.

Police Cannot Receive Restitution Because They Are Not Victims Under State Statute

After tearing up a private road, police cannot seek restitution from a convicted burglar because they are neither victims nor an entity that provides recovery services to a victim

State v. Knight, 2016 BL 252202, Me., No. KEN-15-534, 8/4/2016.

    The Maine Supreme Court held that police, under the state’s victim restitution law, are not authorized to collect restitution from a convict as part of his sentencing because they are neither victims nor an entity that provides recovery services to victims. The issue arose from an incident when police tore up a private road while catching a burglar. After the conviction, the police sought restitution from the convicted burglar to pay for the repairs of the road under Maine’s victim restitution law. The Supreme Court disagreed with the sentence, however, holding that the victim restitution law was narrowly written to only apply to direct victims of the crime or services that directly help victims. Since the police were neither in this case, they could not recover anything, passing on the expense to the community that maintains the road.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Knight_No_KEN15534_2016_BL_252202_Me_Aug_04_2016_Court_Op.

Excuse of Putting a Bra On to Escape the Police Constitutes Escaping Arrest

 A woman was found guilty of "escaping arrest" after sneaking away from the police who gave her permission to put her bra on before arresting her, even if they did not physically arrest her yet

State v. Dorweiler, 2016 BL 234092, Me., No. PEN-15-228, 7/21/16.

    The Maine Supreme Court found that being in the police’s physical custody is not necessary for the purposes of an unlawful escape once the person submits to the police. The court found that the defendant was constructively seized by the police when she acquiesced by letting them into her home and submitted to their commands. The court found that the defendant’s actions and comments gave the arresting officers as much control over the situation as needed, thereby constructively arresting her. The court also ruled that the subjective intent of the arrestee is not determinative in establishing whether the person was under arrest under the escaping arrest statute.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Dorweiler_No_PEN15228_2016_BL_234092_Me_July_21_2016_Cour.