Background
James R. Footman Jr. was convicted after a jury trial of robbing a Big Apple store in Lewiston on November 11, 2024, and, after waiving a jury, of violating a condition of release. The robber wore a medical mask and black Nike shoes with white trim, displayed a black-and-red-handled box cutter, and took $50.
Over Footman’s objection, the trial court allowed the State to introduce video and still images from an attempted robbery of a nearby 7-Eleven three days later. The State argued that the similarities between the robberies, combined with officers’ later observations of Footman wearing similar shoes and possessing a similar box cutter, established his identity as the Big Apple robber. The court sentenced Footman to twelve years for robbery and six concurrent months for the release-condition violation.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded for further proceedings. Evidence of an uncharged crime offered to prove identity must involve sufficiently distinctive similarities and must be supported by evidence that the defendant committed the uncharged crime.
Even assuming the two robberies were sufficiently similar, the State offered no separate or additional evidence connecting Footman to the 7-Eleven robbery. The same shoe-and-box-cutter evidence was used to identify him as the perpetrator of both crimes. Thus, the 7-Eleven evidence did not make it more likely that Footman committed the charged Big Apple robbery and had no probative value on identity. The error was not harmless because the State relied on the uncharged robbery in closing and the Court could not conclude it was highly probable that the evidence did not affect the verdict. The Court did not reach Footman’s sentence appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Other-crime evidence offered to prove identity requires separate evidence linking the defendant to the uncharged act.
- Using the same identification evidence to connect a defendant to both charged and uncharged crimes does not make the other crime relevant to identity.
- The erroneous admission was prejudicial where the prosecution emphasized the other robbery as proof of identity.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the use of other-acts evidence in identity cases. Similarity between crimes alone is insufficient when the prosecution cannot independently show that the defendant committed the uncharged offense.
The Court also reiterated, without deciding the sentencing issue, that a sentence cannot be increased because a defendant exercised the right to remain silent or declined to express remorse; any finding of lack of remorse must rest on affirmative record evidence.