Background
Nathan Lee was convicted after a jury trial of domestic violence aggravated assault and domestic violence criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon. The charges arose from two incidents involving Lee’s daughter at their home. In 2018, the jury could find that Lee pointed a gun at her, clicked its trigger, and said it was fortunate the gun was unloaded. In 2020, the jury could find that Lee pinned her against a door, squeezed her throat until she lost consciousness, and left marks on her neck.
The victim was the only witness to testify about the charged conduct; other witnesses addressed family dynamics and surrounding circumstances. During direct examination, the prosecutor elicited testimony about a detective sergeant’s forensic-interview training and began a question apparently intended to ask whether the detective found the victim credible. Defense counsel intervened before the question was completed. During closing, the prosecutor said he thought the victim’s mother was “pretty … honest.” Lee appealed without seeking a curative instruction or mistrial concerning the detective-sergeant examination and without objecting to the closing remark.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. It held that both incidents were plain prosecutorial errors: attempting to lay a foundation for law-enforcement testimony assessing another witness’s credibility improperly intrudes on the jury’s role, and a prosecutor may not personally vouch for a witness’s credibility in closing argument.
Neither error, however, affected Lee’s substantial rights under obvious-error review. The detective sergeant never answered the incomplete credibility question, so the jury received no express or implied opinion from him. The prosecutor’s single improper comment concerned the victim’s mother, who did not testify to either charged incident, and was followed by a permissible discussion of evidence. The court’s instructions and the prosecutor’s own later remarks emphasized that credibility was for the jury and that attorneys’ statements were not evidence. Considered individually and cumulatively, the errors did not deprive Lee of a fair trial.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecutors may not ask one witness to assess another witness’s credibility, including through law-enforcement interview training.
- A prosecutor’s personal opinion that a witness is honest is improper vouching, even if later argument properly discusses the evidence.
- Plain error alone does not warrant reversal; the defendant must show prejudice affecting substantial rights and the fairness of the proceeding.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Maine’s prohibition on credibility vouching while illustrating the high bar for reversal when the improper question produces no answer and the improper closing comment is isolated and noncentral to the charged events. The court cautioned that comparable errors can require vacatur when witness credibility is central to the State’s case and the facts show resulting prejudice.