State of Maine v. Eric Nobles , 179 A.3d 910 ( 2018 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2018 ME 26Docket: Pen-17-196
Argued: December 14, 2017
Decided: February 13, 2018
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
ERIC NOBLES
SAUFLEY, C.J.
[¶1] Eric Nobles appeals from a judgment of conviction of operating
under the influence (OUI) (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(C)(4), (5)(D)
(2017), operating after habitual offender revocation (Class C), 29-A M.R.S.
§ 2557-A(2)(D) (2017), and driving to endanger (Class E), 29-A M.R.S.
§ 2413(1) (2017), entered by the court (Penobscot County, Lucy, J.) after a jury
trial. Nobles contends that (A) the court abused its discretion in denying his
motion for a mistrial after an officer testified that Nobles was on probation at
the time of his arrest; (B) the prosecutor committed misconduct by
(1) commenting on Nobles’s reluctance to speak with the police before and
after he was arrested and (2) asking the jury to hold Nobles “accountable”
during closing arguments; and (C) the court erred in declining to instruct the
2
jury on the competing harms justification as to the counts of operating under
the influence and driving to endanger. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] Viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to
the State, the jury could have found the following facts beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Guyette, 2012 ME 9, ¶ 2, 36 A.3d 916. On July 6, 2016, Nobles
was driving his vehicle on a private camp road with a friend in the passenger
seat. At around 7:00 p.m., a witness, who had left her camp and was in a pickup
truck with her husband and their two grandchildren, observed Nobles’s vehicle
traveling toward them erratically and at a high rate of speed on the narrow dirt
road. His vehicle was fishtailing, and they were forced to veer off the road to
avoid being hit. The witness’s stepson, who drove away from the witness’s
camp soon after she left, also encountered Nobles’s vehicle barreling down the
road and kicking up dust, forcing the stepson to pull off the road to get out of
the way.
[¶3] The witness and her husband delivered the grandchildren to their
mother at the end of the road and then waited there for the vehicle they had
seen to pass them again so they could take down the license plate number. After
about forty minutes, the witness and her husband heard a vehicle approaching
3
at a high rate of speed and saw Nobles’s vehicle traveling toward them from
behind. When Nobles reached the end of the road, the witness’s husband
pointed at him and told him to slow down. The passenger in Nobles’s vehicle
made a vulgar gesture with his hands and tongue before Nobles’s vehicle turned
toward town and proceeded down the road.
[¶4] The witness and her husband followed Nobles’s vehicle to take note
of the license plate number and to call the police. Nobles’s vehicle was traveling
fast down the road ahead of them and suddenly came to a complete stop. They
stopped their car behind his. After a couple of minutes, Nobles’s vehicle made
a quick U-turn around the pickup truck and drove in the opposite direction.
While the witness was on the phone with the police, the witness’s husband
began to turn his pickup around to follow him. At this time, Nobles did two
“three-sixties” in the road and took off “like a shot out of a gun” toward State
Route 11, a public road leading to the center of town in Millinocket.
[¶5] At about 8:00 p.m., after having been notified about the erratically
operated vehicle, a Millinocket police officer saw Nobles’s vehicle turn off
Route 11 into the parking lot of a convenience store. The officer pulled in after
Nobles and was later joined by another officer. Both officers observed that
Nobles, who was in the driver’s seat, had bloodshot eyes and that there was an
4
odor of alcohol emanating from his vehicle and breath. He was uncooperative,
belligerent, and unresponsive, except to say that he would exit his vehicle only
if the officers brought him a drink of water. During this encounter with law
enforcement officers, Nobles offered no explanation for his erratic driving.
[¶6] After placing Nobles under arrest, the officers took him to the police
station. Once there, he refused to participate in the standard field sobriety
tests, to take a breath test, or to sign the form detailing the consequences of his
refusal. He still offered no explanation for his actions. When asked for his
address, Nobles responded that he was homeless and also stated, “I’m not
taking your test,” before throwing down the tube to the breath testing machine.
[¶7] Nobles was initially charged with a single count of OUI in July 2016,
with complaints alleging operating after habitual offender revocation and
driving to endanger filed in August. He was charged with all three crimes by
indictment in September 2016.
[¶8] The court held a jury trial on April 18 and 19, 2017. During opening
statements, defense counsel informed the jury that Nobles would be testifying.
Counsel stated, “Now, my client was not drinking and he will explain that. And
you’re going to hear him talk about how frightened and confused he was . . . .
5
And my client, who is a rather meek man, got very confused, very anxious. He
wasn’t informed about what was going on. He didn’t cooperate.”
[¶9] The witness, the witness’s stepson, and the two officers testified for
the State at trial. When the arresting officer testified, Nobles objected after the
following exchange:
Q. . . . . Now, after you went through this process with [arresting
and attempting to test] him, did you allow him to bail or what
happened from there?
A. He ended up being on probation.
Q. Excuse me. Can you just answer my question? Did you allow
him to get bail?
Nobles immediately moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion but
provided a curative instruction, before the State resumed examination of the
witness: “I instruct the jury to disregard the witness’s last answer to [the
prosecutor]’s question.”
[¶10] The prosecutor also asked both officers if Nobles ever mentioned
that he was frightened by or was being harassed by the witness and her
husband, or if he gave any explanation as to why he was driving on a public
road. Both officers testified that he did not, and defense counsel did not raise
any objection to this line of questioning.
6
[¶11] After the State presented its case, Nobles testified. He told the jury
that he knew at the time of the incident that his license had been revoked. He
denied having driven at a high rate of speed before the witness and her husband
began following him. He explained that the reason he had driven erratically
and onto a public road was because he thought the witness and her husband
were chasing him, he had seen something black and shiny in the witness’s
husband’s hand that he thought was a gun, he was scared and concerned for his
safety, and he needed to get to a telephone to call the police because neither he
nor his passenger had a cellphone with a charged battery. Nobles testified that,
although he had driven on the public road specifically to find the police, he did
not tell them he was frightened or appear pleased to see them at the
convenience store because he suffered from anxiety, and he was confused and
scared. He testified that he did not remember yelling at the officers.
[¶12] At the close of trial, Nobles requested a jury instruction on the
competing harms justification for the charge of operating after license
revocation and, eventually, the charge of OUI as well, arguing that he was
driving only because he was trying to get away from the greater harm posed by
the witness’s allegedly threatening husband. The court ruled that the
competing harms instruction would be given for the charge of operating after
7
license revocation because that is the only crime that requires operation on a
public way as an element. The court declined to give a competing harms
instruction regarding the OUI charge because Nobles had admitted to operating
on the private way before encountering the witness’s and her stepson’s
vehicles. Nobles did not seek a competing harms instruction regarding the
charge of driving to endanger.1
[¶13] During his closing argument, the prosecutor made the following
statement regarding Nobles’s behavior when approached by police:
If this defendant was so concerned about what was happening to
him, and his cell phone was dead, and he needed to get to the store
to call the police, what happens? They show up and, well, officer,
just what I was waiting for. I need to tell you something. Nope. He
shut right up. He didn’t even—he didn’t even want to tell the police
where he lived.
Also during closing and rebuttal arguments, the prosecutor characterized the
role of the jury in a way that Nobles now argues constituted prosecutorial
misconduct. The prosecutor stated,
[Y]ou are charged with a duty of holding people accountable for
misdeeds in our communities, that it’s not just a job that’s confined
to the government or to the police. It depends upon quite often the
participation of citizens.
1 Nonetheless, in ruling on Nobles’s requested competing harms instructions, the court stated,
“I’m not persuaded that it applies to either the driving to endanger or the OUI, both of which the
evidence is clear that he was driving before he encountered the [other] vehicle and had the
experiences that he testified to.”
8
. . . .
. . . And what the defendant’s giving you here today, or gave
you yesterday, was an exaggerated set of facts that he has to have
for you in a courtroom to avoid being held accountable.
Now, this process, folks, as I said, of holding people
accountable, people have different roles to play. And we respect
those roles. . . . You’re not here to punish. You’re to decide whether
or not [Nobles] should be held accountable. If there is punishment,
then it’s up to this learned presiding justice. You’re not punishing
him.
But folks, think about this. You have a responsibility and it’s
different from everybody else’s. You too are members of the
community. And when [the witness] says that she called the police
because she was concerned about the danger that [Nobles] posed,
she took her responsibility seriously. She did what her part was.
And now you folks have a responsibility. That’s how this process
works in this country. It is left to citizens on juries to make
decisions about whether or not people should be held accountable.
Police can’t do that by themselves. Prosecutors can’t do it, the
government can’t do it. It comes down to people in your situation,
based upon the evidence, and that’s what you should decide this
case on. Based upon the evidence.
[¶14] Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s closing
arguments. The jury found Nobles guilty of all three charges.
[¶15] For operating under the influence, the court sentenced Nobles to
four and one-half years’ imprisonment, with all but two and one-half years
suspended, and it imposed a two-year term of probation, a fine of $2,500, and
9
an eight-year license suspension.2 For operating after habitual offender
revocation, the court sentenced Nobles to two years’ imprisonment concurrent
with the OUI sentence and a fine of $1,000; and for the driving to endanger
count, the court sentenced Nobles to 150 days’ imprisonment, concurrent with
the other counts, and imposed a fine of $575 and a 180-day license suspension.
Nobles appealed from the judgment. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2017); M.R. App. P. 2
(Tower 2016).3
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Mistrial
[¶16] Nobles first contends that the court abused its discretion in
denying his motion for a mistrial after the officer testified that Nobles was on
probation at the time of his arrest. He argues that the testimony was prejudicial
because it painted him as a dangerous criminal with prior convictions.
[¶17] In recognition of the trial court’s superior vantage point in ruling
on a motion for a mistrial, we review the denial of such a motion for an abuse
of discretion. See State v. Logan, 2014 ME 92, ¶ 14, 97 A.3d 121. We will vacate
2 In the preceding ten years, Nobles had been convicted of three or more OUI offenses.
3 The notice of appeal was filed before September 1, 2017, the effective date of the restyled Maine
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See M.R. App. P. 1 (providing that the restyled rules apply for appeals
in which the notice of appeal was filed before September 1, 2017).
10
a court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial “only when there is prosecutorial bad
faith or there are exceptionally prejudicial circumstances.” State v. Tarbox,
2017 ME 71, ¶ 18, 158 A.3d 957.
[¶18] “Generally, when a witness testifies to inadmissible evidence, a
defendant is only entitled to a curative jury instruction, not a mistrial.”
State v. Winslow, 2007 ME 124, ¶ 19, 930 A.2d 1080. If the court has opted to
provide a curative instruction, we will not disturb its decision unless the court
committed clear error by not finding that the jury’s exposure to prejudicial
inadmissible evidence would incurably taint the jury’s verdict. See Logan, 2014
ME 92, ¶ 14, 97 A.3d 121. We presume that the jury follows the court’s
delivered jury instructions, including any curative instructions. Tarbox, 2017
ME 71, ¶ 18, 158 A.3d 957.
[¶19] Here, there is no indication of prosecutorial bad faith. The
prosecutor did not ask any questions that could be expected to result in a
response from the officer about Nobles’s probation status. See Winslow, 2007
ME 124, ¶ 20, 930 A.2d 1080. Lack of prosecutorial bad faith is also
demonstrated by the prosecutor’s immediate reaction, asking the officer to
answer only the question that he had posed. See id. Nor were the circumstances
exceptionally prejudicial, given that the statement was isolated and vague, and
11
that Nobles himself testified that his license had been revoked.4 See Tarbox,
2017 ME 71, ¶ 19, 158 A.3d 957. The court did not err in finding that a curative
jury instruction was a sufficient remedy and did not abuse its discretion in
denying Nobles’s motion for a mistrial.
B. Prosecutorial Misconduct
[¶20] Nobles next argues that, although he did not challenge the
prosecutor’s conduct during trial, the trial court committed obvious error in
failing to take any action to remedy prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, he
argues that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutor
(1) unconstitutionally commented on Nobles’s reluctance to speak with the
police before and after he was arrested and (2) impermissibly argued that the
jury should hold Nobles “accountable” during closing arguments.
[¶21] Because Nobles did not object at trial about what he contends on
appeal was prosecutorial misconduct, we review for obvious error. See State v.
Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 35, 58 A.3d 1032. To prevail on an argument that
prosecutorial misconduct amounted to obvious error, a defendant must first
demonstrate that (1) there was prosecutorial misconduct that went
4 Although Nobles also stipulated that he had been convicted of three or more OUI offenses in the
preceding ten years, that information was not presented to the jury, and the jury was not asked to
reach findings about those prior convictions.
12
unaddressed by the court and (2) the error was plain. See id. ¶ 36. An error is
plain if it “is so clear under existing law that the court and the prosecutor were
required to address the matter even in the absence of a timely objection.” State
v. Robinson, 2016 ME 24, ¶ 26, 134 A.3d 828 (quotation marks omitted). If the
defendant meets this burden, the defendant must next demonstrate (3) that the
error was sufficiently prejudicial to have affected the outcome of the
proceeding, thereby demonstrating a reasonable probability that the error
affected his substantial rights. See Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 37, 58 A.3d 1032.
Finally, we will set aside a jury’s verdict only if we further conclude that (4) the
error seriously affects the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. Id.
¶ 35. “When a prosecutor’s statement is not sufficient to draw an objection,
particularly when viewed in the overall context of the trial, that statement will
rarely be found to have created a reasonable probability that it affected the
outcome of the proceeding.” Id. ¶ 38.
1. Pre- and Post-Arrest Silence
[¶22] Nobles contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in his
closing argument when he referenced Nobles’s pre- and post-arrest silence
with the police. He contends that, at the time of his arrest and just following his
arrest, he had the absolute constitutional right to remain silent and that the
13
prosecutor’s argument violated his constitutional protection against compelled
self-incrimination.
[¶23] When a defendant does not testify at trial, the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution5 may be violated if state
prosecutors comment on the accused’s invoked silence, including pretrial
silence. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965); State v. Lovejoy, 2014
ME 48, ¶ 22, 89 A.3d 1066 (“[I]ndividuals are endowed with the Fifth
Amendment’s protections against compelled self-incrimination both before
and after arrest.”); State v. Diaz, 681 A.2d 466, 467-69 (Me. 1996).
[¶24] Although we have never required the use of any specific words for
a person to invoke constitutional protection for his or her silence, we do require
that the record demonstrate the defendant’s actual intention to exercise the
constitutional right to remain silent. See Lovejoy, 2014 ME 48, ¶ 25, 89 A.3d
1066. Here, there is no such showing in the record. To the contrary, Nobles did
not remain silent; he was cursing and was belligerent and offensive in making
5 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, “No person
. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
14
statements to the officers about getting out of his vehicle and about taking the
breath test.
[¶25] Moreover, when a defendant elects to testify in his own defense,
the use of prearrest silence to impeach a criminal defendant’s credibility does
not violate the Fifth Amendment. See Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 238
(1980). “[I]mpeachment follows the defendant’s own decision to cast aside his
cloak of silence and advances the truthfinding function of the criminal trial.” Id.Impeachment of a testifying defendant by the use of prearrest silence does not
violate the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 240.
[¶26] In this case, Nobles had not yet testified when the prosecutor asked
the officers about Nobles’s statements and actions. Defense counsel had,
however, announced during her opening statement that Nobles would be
testifying, and she had summarized the version of the facts to which he would
testify. Nobles’s later testimony was consistent with counsel’s opening
statement and included testimony that he was driving on Route 11 to find a
telephone and contact the police for protection, which was inconsistent with
the observations of the officers in their initial encounter with Nobles. The
prosecutor’s closing arguments were made after Nobles’s testimony. Because
Nobles did not invoke his right to remain silent, did not actually remain silent,
15
and subsequently chose to testify at trial, he has not established any error, let
alone obvious error “so clear under existing law that the court and the
prosecutor were required to address the matter even in the absence of a timely
objection.” Robinson, 2016 ME 24, ¶ 26, 134 A.3d 828 (quotation marks
omitted).
2. Arguments Referring to Nobles’s Accountability
[¶27] Nobles contends that the prosecutor’s repeated argument that the
jury had a duty to determine his accountability amounted to prosecutorial
misconduct because it improperly suggested to the jury that it had a civic duty
to find him guilty, resulting in prejudicial error.
[¶28] Here, the language preceding and following the prosecutor’s
challenged statements provides important context. See Dolloff, 2012 ME 130,
¶ 70, 58 A.3d 1032. The prosecutor did not argue that the jury had an obligation
to hold Nobles accountable; he instead indicated that it was the jury’s job to
determine whether Nobles should be held accountable. Additionally, the
prosecutor predicated the jury’s duty to make that decision on its consideration
of the evidence, stating, “that’s what you should decide this case on. Based upon
the evidence.” Although some of the prosecutor’s comments, viewed in
isolation, may appear similar to the comments that led us to hold that there was
16
prosecutorial misconduct upon a preserved claim of error in State v. Begin, 2015
ME 86, ¶¶ 25-28, 120 A.3d 97, the comments here, read in context, do not
demonstrate obvious error requiring that we vacate the judgment of
conviction.
[¶29] Moreover, any potential prejudice was fully remedied by the
court’s full and effective instructions, including instructions that the attorneys’
arguments are not evidence and that the jury’s role is to consider the evidence
to determine whether the State has proved each crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. See id. ¶ 28.
C. Competing Harms Justification
[¶30] Nobles finally contends that the court erred in declining to instruct
the jury on the justification of competing harms with respect to the charges of
operating under the influence and driving to endanger. He argues that the
competing harms justification was generated by his testimony that he had to
continue driving to reach safety to avoid any physical confrontation with the
witness’s husband.
[¶31] When reviewing a court’s determination that the evidence was
insufficient to generate a justification, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the defendant. State v. Nadeau, 2007 ME 57, ¶ 10, 920 A.2d 452.
17
Viewed in this way, the justification is generated if the evidence is “sufficient to
make the existence of all facts constituting the competing harms justification a
reasonable hypothesis for the fact finder to entertain.” State v. Lemieux,
2001 ME 46, ¶ 3, 767 A.2d 295 (quotation marks omitted).
[¶32] There are four elements of the competing harms justification:
“(1) the defendant or another person must be threatened with imminent
physical harm, when viewed objectively; (2) the present conduct must be for
the purpose of preventing a greater harm, or stated another way, the urgency
of the present harm must outweigh the harm that the violated statute seeks to
prevent; (3) the defendant must subjectively believe that his conduct is
necessary; and (4) the defendant must have no reasonable, legal alternatives to
the conduct.” Nadeau, 2007 ME 57, ¶ 13, 920 A.2d 452 (citations omitted)
(quotation marks omitted); see 17-A M.R.S. § 103(1) (2017). If generated, the
State has the burden of persuasion to disprove the justification beyond a
reasonable doubt. See State v. Ouellette, 2012 ME 11, ¶ 8, 37 A.3d 921.
1. OUI
[¶33] We are not persuaded by Nobles’s argument that the jury should
have been instructed on the justification of competing harms with respect to
the OUI charge. To establish the elements of OUI, the State was required to
18
prove that Nobles “[o]perate[d] a motor vehicle [w]hile under the influence of
intoxicants.” 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A)(1) (2017). Unlike the crime of
operating after revocation, the crime of OUI does not require operation on a
public way. Compare id. with 29-A M.R.S. § 2557-A(1)(A) (2017). Because
Nobles, who denied having consumed alcohol at all on July 6, 2016, admitted
that he was operating the vehicle before he encountered the witness and her
husband, even viewing the facts most favorably to him, he has admitted that he
operated his vehicle at a time when no cause to evade them had yet arisen.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it determined that a competing
harms instruction was not generated for the OUI charge.
2. Driving to Endanger
[¶34] Because Nobles did not request the competing harms instruction
for the charge of driving to endanger, his argument that the instruction should
have been given for that charge is unpreserved. If a defendant explicitly waives
the delivery of an instruction or makes a strategic or tactical decision not to
request it, we will decline to engage in appellate review, even for obvious error.
See State v. Ford, 2013 ME 96, ¶¶ 15-17, 82 A.3d 75; see also 17-A M.R.S.
§ 101(1), (3) (2017) (stating that, with respect to statutory defenses—
19
including justifications—a trial court is not required “to instruct on an issue
that has been waived by the defendant”).
[¶35] Here, although Nobles did not expressly waive the instruction for
the charge of driving to endanger, when he was specifically asked to identify
the charges for which he sought the instruction, he did not include that charge.
He first requested the instruction only with respect to the charge of operating
after revocation. After some discussion about whether the evidence generated
the instruction for that charge, Nobles added, “I’ll tag it on to the OUI but, you
know, my client . . . he’s saying . . . he wasn’t drinking.” The court asked,
“[Y]ou’re now asking for it . . . on the OUI?” and Nobles responded, “Yes, I am.”
Never did Nobles identify the charge of driving to endanger as a charge for
which the competing harms instruction was generated.6 Given Nobles’s explicit
decision to request the competing harms instruction only for the two other
charges, we do not entertain his challenge to the court’s instructions on driving
to endanger. See Ford, 2013 ME 96, ¶¶ 15-17, 82 A.3d 75.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
6 This choice is understandable; the instructions on driving to endanger required the jury to
consider more broadly whether Nobles, in driving as he did on July 6, 2016, acted in “gross deviation
from the standard of conduct that a reasonable and prudent person would observe in the same
situation.” 17-A M.R.S. § 35(4)(C) (2017) (emphasis added); see also 29-A M.R.S. § 2413(1) (2017).
20
Tina Heather Nadeau, Esq. (orally), The Law Office of Tina Heather Nadeau,
PLLC, Portland, for appellant Eric Nobles
R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, and Chris Ka Sin Chu, Asst. Dist. Atty.
(orally), Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee State of Maine
Penobscot County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2016-2580
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY