Background
Heather Marichal was charged with criminal OUI after her vehicle crossed into the wrong lane in Auburn, struck another vehicle, and then hit a snowplow. She told an officer that she had consumed alcohol at a “brew fest,” said she was the driver and sole occupant, and registered a breath-alcohol result of .21.
Marichal maintained that a crash witness would testify that a man—not Marichal—had driven and fled. The witness ignored a subpoena for an earlier trial date. Marichal obtained a civil capias warrant, but did not subpoena the witness for the final December 2024 trial date or seek a material-witness warrant. When the witness did not appear, the trial court denied a continuance. Marichal entered a conditional guilty plea preserving her challenge to that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Marichal failed to establish two required grounds for a continuance based on an absent witness: due diligence to obtain the witness and a likelihood that additional time would secure the witness’s testimony.
Marichal had not subpoenaed the witness for the December trial and had pursued a civil capias procedure rather than a material-witness warrant, which could have allowed the court to arrest the witness and require bail for his appearance. Given the case’s three-year history and repeated unsuccessful efforts to secure the witness, the record did not show that another continuance would likely produce him. The court also rejected Marichal’s federal compulsory-process and due-process claims because she did not show that the witness’s absence resulted from State action or inaction.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking a continuance for an unavailable witness must show relevance, diligence, a reasonable continuance period, and that the delay is likely to secure the evidence.
- Failing to subpoena a witness for the actual trial date can defeat a claim of due diligence.
- Compulsory-process protections require a showing that government conduct caused the loss of favorable, material testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that courts may deny continuances even where an absent witness could support the defense if the defendant has not used the available criminal procedures to secure that witness. It also distinguishes a civil capias mechanism from a material-witness warrant in a criminal case.