State v. Tieman

207 A.3d 618

STATE of Maine

v.Luc W. TIEMAN

Docket: Som-18-194

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: March 5, 2019

Decided: April 23, 2019

Clifford B. Strike, Esq. (orally), Strike, Gonzales & Butler Bailey, Portland, for appellant Luc W. Tieman

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Leanne Robbin, 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.

JABAR, J.

[¶1] Luc W. Tieman appeals from a judgment of conviction of murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A) (2018), entered by the court (Somerset County, Mullen, J. ) following a jury trial. Tieman contends that the court abused its discretion by admitting Facebook Messenger records in evidence, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Perkins , 2019 ME 6, ¶ 3, 199 A.3d 1174 (quotation marks omitted).

[¶3] In August 2016, Tieman and his wife, the victim in this case, returned to Maine after visiting the victim's family in South Carolina. At that time, Tieman and the victim were living at Tieman's mother and father's home in Fairfield, Maine. On August 24, 2016, Tieman was seen by several people with another woman with whom he had begun communicating on Facebook a week earlier. On the night of August 24, 2016, Tieman had sex with her. On that same night, the victim called Tieman thirty-one times between 5:46 p.m. and 10:22 p.m.

[¶4] The following day, August 25, 2016, a friend of both Tieman and the victim contacted the victim using Facebook's messaging platform, "Facebook Messenger." The friend informed the victim that Tieman was "getting caught up in other women and saying [that] they were separated." The victim responded to the friend, stating in several messages that Tieman had "broke[n] [her] heart," but that "it [would] all work out [because] God has a plan," and that Tieman would "never find a better woman than [her]" and he had "lost [her]."

[¶5] On August 26, 2016, Tieman moved into the home of the woman with whom he was having an affair and informed her that the victim had run off with another man. The same day, the victim's parents became concerned about the victim because she was not responding to their calls, text messages, or Facebook messages. In an attempt to communicate with the victim, the parents reached out to Tieman and asked how he and the victim were doing. Tieman responded the following day, stating: "We are good. Thank you. Love her so much ...."

[¶6] On September 8, 2016, the parents of the victim had still not heard from her, so they called Tieman's father, who informed them that the victim was missing. The victim's parents then called Tieman, asking why he had not told them that the victim was missing. Tieman stated: "I was waiting for her to contact you because I still would never bad mouth her. I still love you all."

[¶7] The following day, September 9, 2016, the victim's father filed a missing person report with the Fairfield Police Department. Tieman explained to the victim's father, to Fairfield police, and to Maine State Police detectives that he had driven to Wal-Mart with the victim, had gone into the store alone, and when he had returned to the vehicle the victim had been gone.¹

[¶8] On September 20, 2016, a search warrant was executed at the Tieman family home in Fairfield. Police dogs trained to detect human remains were employed at the scene and approximately five minutes into the search a police dog discovered a burial site behind the Tieman family home. The victim's body was in the burial site; she was wrapped in a blanket and buried with an assortment of items. Among those items was a note written to "Joy-Joy" from "LUC-e-DA-Bear" which stated, in part: "forever I love you for always.... Rest in peace .... I can't wait to be with you and see you and hold you again."

[¶9] Around the same time that the victim's body was exhumed, detectives questioned Tieman about the body. Tieman stated that the victim had died of an overdose and he had buried her in the backyard with a note and some flowers. Tieman also stated that the victim had suffered no physical injuries. However, an autopsy performed on September 21, 2016, revealed that the cause of the victim's death was gunshot wounds of the head and neck. Fragments and a portion of the jacket of a .45 caliber bullet were discovered in the victim's head during the autopsy, and a .45 caliber handgun had been seized from the Tieman residence during the execution of the search warrant on September 20, 2016.²

[¶10] Tieman was arrested on September 21, 2016, and indicted on October 27, 2016, for the murder of the victim. Following a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on April 9, 2018. Tieman was sentenced to a term of fifty-five years' imprisonment with the Department of Corrections. This timely appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Facebook Messenger Records

[¶11] Tieman raises two challenges to the court's admission of the Facebook Messenger records, which were offered and admitted as State's Exhibit 74A over Tieman's objection. First, he contends that the court clearly erred or abused its discretion in finding that the Facebook Messenger records were authenticated pursuant to M.R. Evid. 901. Second, he asserts that the court abused its discretion by admitting the Facebook Messenger records pursuant to the hearsay exception that allows for the admission of a declarant's statement of his or her then-existing state of mind. See M.R. Evid. 803(3).

[¶12] We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for clear error or abuse of discretion. See State v. Berke , 2010 ME 34, ¶ 10, 992 A.2d 1290. "We review a trial court's ruling to admit or exclude alleged hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion" and "will find an abuse of discretion if a party can demonstrate that the trial court exceeded the bounds of the reasonable choices available to it." Guardianship of David P. , 2018 ME 151, ¶ 6, 196 A.3d 896 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Watson , 2016 ME 176, ¶¶ 10-11, 152 A.3d 152. We afford broad discretion to the trial court in its determination on the admissibility of evidence. Guardianship of David P. , 2018 ME 151, ¶ 6, 196 A.3d 896.

1. M.R. Evid. 901

[¶13] Beginning with Tieman's challenge to the court's finding that the Facebook Messenger records were authenticated, Rule 901 requires that a proponent of evidence "produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." M.R. Evid. 901(a). Maine's standard for authenticating evidence pursuant to Rule 901 is "identical to that set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence" and "embodies a flexible approach to authentication reflecting a low burden of proof." Berke , 2010 ME 34, ¶ 11, 992 A.2d 1290 (quotation marks omitted). Testimony from a witness with knowledge that electronically stored information is what it is claimed to be is an adequate method of authentication. See M.R. Evid. 901(b)(1) ; State v. Webster , 2008 ME 119, ¶ 20, 955 A.2d 240 ; State v. Churchill , 2011 ME 121, ¶ 8, 32 A.3d 1026. "Electronic evidence is held to the same standard of authentication as other evidence." Churchill, 2011 ME 121, ¶ 6, 32 A.3d 1026.

[¶14] Contrary to Tieman's contentions, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in its determination that the Facebook Messenger conversation was authenticated through the testimony of the person with whom the victim was communicating. See id. ¶ 8 ("The hallmark of authentication pursuant to M.R. Evid. 901(b)(1) is assurance from the witness that the chat log offered in evidence is a true and accurate representation of the chat as it occurred. It is then up to the jury to decide whether to believe the witness." (citation omitted) ); see also Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 1001.1 at 560 (6th ed. 2007) ("Questions about the integrity of electronic data generally go to the weight of electronically based evidence, not its admissibility.").

2. M.R. Evid. 803(3)

[¶15] Turning to Tieman's challenge to the court's admission of the Facebook Messenger records, Rule 803(3) provides that "[a] statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health)" is "not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness." M.R. Evid. 803(3). Hearsay statements of a declarant's then-existing state of mind are admissible in a criminal prosecution if they are "highly relevant and uttered in circumstances indicating its truthfulness above and beyond the reliability presumed of all statements of present mental state." State v. Cugliata , 372 A.2d 1019, 1027 (Me. 1977) ; see also State v. Atwood , 2010 ME 12, ¶ 28, 988 A.2d 981. "The premise for admitting hearsay statements evidencing state-of-mind is that such statements are reliable because of their spontaneity and the resulting probable sincerity." Horton v. Allen , 370 F.3d 75, 85 (1st Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).

[¶16] Tieman contends that the messages sent by the victim do not fit within the hearsay exception for a declarant's then-existing state of mind pursuant to M.R. Evid. 803(3). The Facebook Messenger conversations contained in State's Exhibit 74A include statements made by the victim and the friend who reached out to the victim. The court found that the victim's statements were admissible as "an exception to the hearsay rule under [ M.R. Evid. 803(3) because] it is a statement of [the victim's] existing state of mind and emotion ...." The court did not make any findings regarding the statements made by the friend that were contained within the Facebook Messenger...