State v. Hansley

203 A.3d 827

STATE of Maine

v.Robert HANSLEY

Docket: Pen-18-23

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: February 4, 2019

Decided: March 5, 2019

Tina Heather Nadeau, Esq. (orally), The Law Office of Tina Heather Nadeau, PLLC, Portland, for appellant Robert Hansley

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Donald W. Macomber, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

GORMAN, J.

[¶1] Robert Hansley appeals from a judgment of conviction of murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A) (2018), and of elevated aggravated assault with a firearm (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A) (2018), entered by the trial court (Penobscot County, Anderson, J. ) following a jury trial. Hansley argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by (1) denying his requested jury instruction on eyewitness identification and otherwise giving an inadequate instruction on the topic, and (2) instructing the jury in a way that overemphasized the definition of accomplice liability.¹ We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶2] "Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the jury rationally could have found the following facts, which are supported by competent evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. McBreairty , 2016 ME 61, ¶ 2, 137 A.3d 1012.

[¶3] At approximately 3:30 a.m. on November 27, 2015, Hansley and Thomas Ferguson entered an apartment in Bangor. Almost immediately after they arrived, one or both of them shot and killed Robert Kennedy and gravely injured Barry Jenkins.

Kennedy suffered seven gunshot wounds ; one bullet perforated his aorta, killing him. Jenkins suffered six gunshot wounds, but survived after being rushed to the hospital.

[¶4] On December 30, 2015, the Penobscot County grand jury returned two indictments arising from these events. The first indictment charged Hansley with one count of murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A), and one count of elevated aggravated assault (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A). The second indictment charged Ferguson with the same crimes.² Hansley pleaded not guilty to both charges.

[¶5] The court conducted a seven-day jury trial in November and December of 2017. Jenkins was among the witnesses called by the State. He testified that both Hansley and Ferguson had "pulled out" guns, that he "figured both of them [were] shooting," but that he did not know "who shot who," and that he did not see Hansley shoot at him. At the conclusion of the testimonial portion of the trial, Hansley asked that the jurors be given a specific instruction on eyewitness identification so that they could appropriately weigh and consider Jenkins's testimony in light of the "extremely high stress situation" of the shooting. Although the court did not give the jury the precise instruction requested by Hansley, it did instruct the jurors that, in reviewing the testimony of all witnesses, they should consider—among other things—"whether the witness was under stress, including the stress of the event being witnessed while observing the person or persons committing a crime ...."

[¶6] Hansley also argued that the evidence presented at trial did not generate an instruction on accomplice liability. When the court correctly responded that such an instruction had been generated by the evidence presented, Hansley then asked for some additional instructions on that issue. Although the court denied Hansley's specifically-requested instruction, it did instruct the jurors on the law concerning accomplice liability.

[¶7] The jury found Hansley guilty of both murder and elevated aggravated assault. The court entered a judgment on the verdict, imposing a forty-year term of imprisonment for the murder and a concurrent twenty-five-year term for the elevated aggravated assault. Hansley timely appealed. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2018) ; M.R. App. P. 2B(b)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jury Instructions

[¶8] In general, we review jury instructions in their entirety to determine whether they presented the relevant issues to the jury fairly, accurately, and adequately, and we "will vacate the court's judgment only if the erroneous instruction resulted in prejudice." Caruso v. Jackson Lab. , 2014 ME 101, ¶ 12, 98 A.3d 221 ; see also Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum , 660 F.3d 487, 503 (1st Cir. 2011). "Prejudice occurs when an erroneous instruction on a particular point of law affects the jury's verdict, or alternatively, when the instruction was so plainly wrong and the point involved so vital that the verdict must have been based upon a misconception of the law." Caruso , 2014 ME 101, ¶ 15, 98 A.3d 221 (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted); see also Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 422(b) at 355 (5th ed. 2018). The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that an erroneous instruction affected the jury's verdict. Caruso , 2014 ME 101, ¶¶ 15, 18, 98 A.3d 221.

[¶9] More specifically, where an appellant argues that a trial court erred in denying his requested jury instruction, we will vacate the judgment only if the appellant can demonstrate that the denied instruction "(1) stated the law correctly; (2) was generated by the evidence; (3) was not misleading or confusing; and (4) was not sufficiently covered in the instructions the court gave." State v. Hanaman , 2012 ME 40, ¶ 16, 38 A.3d 1278.

1. Eyewitness Identification

[¶10] The United States Supreme Court has endorsed the use of jury instructions that discuss the potential risks of eyewitness identification. See Perry v. New Hampshire , 565 U.S. 228, 246, 132 S.Ct. 716, 181 L.Ed.2d 694 (2012). Recently, we revisited this issue and determined that the following instruction was "consistent with the evolution of the law regarding eyewitness identification" and "a correct statement of the law":

You should carefully consider any testimony relating to eye witness identification. For instance, you should consider the following in determining the accuracy of any eye witness identification: whether the accuracy of an eye witness identification may be affected by the fact that the person identified is of a different race, which may make it more difficult to identify an individual, whether the accuracy of an eye witness identification may be affected by the circumstances under which it was made, how much weight, if any, you should give to the amount of certainty expressed by a witness given that there may not be a correlation between the reliability of an eye witness identification and the amount of certainty expressed by the witness in making that identification. It's up to you to consider those issues and evaluate whether those affect any eye witness identification.

State v. Mahmoud , 2016 ME 135, ¶¶ 9, 15, 147 A.3d 833 (quotation marks omitted).

[¶11] We have not endorsed any other specific language for instructions on eyewitness identification. See State v. Ashley , 666 A.2d 103, 107 (Me. 1995) ("A trial court has wide discretion in formulating its instruction to the jury so long as it accurately and coherently reflects the applicable law."); see also Perry , 565 U.S. at 246 n.7, 132 S.Ct. 716 (listing several state and federal instructions on eyewitness identification). The Maine Jury Instruction Manual offers two representative models for instructions on eyewitness identification, one modeled after Instruction 2.22 of the Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit and the other on the instruction quoted above that we approved in Mahmoud , 2016 ME 135, ¶¶ 9, 15, 147 A.3d 833. See Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual § 6-22A at 6-41 cmt. (2018-19 ed.).

[¶12] In this case, the instruction provided by the trial court did not follow verbatim either of the representative instructions in the Maine Jury Instruction Manual , but a verbatim recitation is not needed. See Ashley , 666 A.2d at 107 ("While representative jury instructions often are helpful, it is neither sufficient nor advisable to rely solely on such an instruction."); Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual § 6-22A at 6-42 cmt. ("In every case when giving [an eyewitness identification] instruction ... the instruction will have to be adjusted to the facts and circumstances incident to the eyewitness identification for the case."). The court's instruction here appropriately listed several factors that the jury could consider in evaluating the reliability of an eyewitness identification; many of these factors mirrored those listed in Hansley's proposed instruction and others mirrored those listed in the representative instructions. See Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual § 6-22A at 6-41. When viewed in its entirety, the instruction fairly and adequately apprised the jury of the relevant issues and governing law. See Perry , 565 U.S. at 233, 132 S.Ct. 716 ; Caruso , 2014 ME 101, ¶ 12, 98 A.3d 221 ; Ashley , 666 A.2d at 107.

[¶13] Furthermore, the trial court did not err when it denied Hansley's requested jury instruction because, although it may have stated the law correctly, Hansley's proposed instruction on eyewitness identification contained paragraphs explaining how memories are formed—information neither properly in evidence nor generated by any evidence presented. See Hanaman , 2012 ME 40, ¶ 16, 38 A.3d 1278. Additionally, Hansley's proposed instruction contained segments that would have amounted to the court commenting on the evidence: "Even if you are convinced that the witness believes his or her identification is correct, you still must consider the possibility that the witness made a mistake in the identification." Although defense counsel may wish to so argue in closing statements, a court may not give such an instruction, as it could be seen as a comment on specific evidence. See id. ; State v. Just , 2007 ME 91, ¶ 15, 926 A.2d 1173 ("Comment by the court on the evidence during instructions is neither required nor...