Background
A jury convicted Timothy J. Burns of unlawful sexual contact with a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old person. The evidence, viewed favorably to the verdict, showed that while Burns lived with his then-girlfriend and her daughter in late 2021 or early 2022, he put his hand inside the victim’s pants and touched her genitals for sexual gratification.
Before trial, Burns sought a computer-generated change log for the police report, asserting it was discoverable. At trial, the State recalled the victim’s mother after a recess to clarify conflicting testimony about when Burns lived in her home. During closing, despite the court’s warning, the prosecutor repeatedly used the phrase “we know”; the court sustained objections, and the prosecutor rephrased the statements as arguments about what the evidence showed.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The police-report change log was not automatically discoverable because it was external metadata, was not used to charge Burns, was not intended for use as evidence, and was neither obtained from nor belonged to Burns. The trial court also reasonably found that the log was not material or relevant to the defense: the evidence showed no deletions or substantive alterations to earlier report entries and no indication that report information had been withheld.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the mother’s recall. Although the prosecutor’s private recess conversation with the witness created an unnecessary appearance of impropriety, the recalled testimony clarified genuine inconsistencies, no sequestration order barred the contact, and Burns could cross-examine the witness about the conversation. The prosecutor’s “we know” remarks were erroneous, but Burns did not seek a mistrial or other relief, so review was for obvious error. The sustained objections and jury instructions that counsel’s arguments were not evidence adequately addressed any prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Police-report metadata is not automatically discoverable merely because the underlying report is discoverable.
- A defendant seeking discretionary criminal discovery must show that the requested material may be material to the defense and that the request is reasonable.
- Improper prosecutorial phrasing in closing did not warrant an unrequested mistrial where the remarks were tied to record evidence and the court gave effective corrective measures.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a line between discoverable police reports and ancillary electronic metadata. It also emphasizes that discovery motions should include the parties’ relevant written communications so trial courts can assess both the dispute and compliance with discovery rules.
For trial lawyers, the opinion warns prosecutors against privately consulting with a witness during a recess to correct testimony, even though recall may be allowed when it serves truth-seeking and the defense has a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine.