[¶ 4] The following facts are drawn from the court's findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, and from the lengthy procedural record. SeeIn re Gabriel W. , 2017 ME 133, ¶ 3, 166 A.3d 982. Evelyn and Elijah are twins born prematurely in October 2013. Six days after they were born, the Department petitioned for a preliminary protection order on the ground that the twins' parents had been convicted of crimes perpetrated against their first child, Nathaniel, who died due to the mother's abuse within the first year after they had adopted him. Specifically, in 2005, the mother had been convicted of manslaughter (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A) (2016), seeState v. Allen , 2006 ME 20, ¶ 1, 892 A.2d 447 (affirming conviction), and the father had been convicted of assault of a person under the age of six (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 207(1)(B) (2016), seeState v. Allen , 2006 ME 21, ¶ 1, 892 A.2d 456 (affirming conviction). Because the statutes pursuant to which the parents were convicted have not been amended since their convictions, we cite the current codification of those statutes.
Accordingly, we review the admission of Exhibits # 22 and # 27 for an abuse of discretion, and the admission of Exhibit # 24 for obvious error. State v. Allen , 2006 ME 21, ¶ 9 n.3, 892 A.2d 456.[¶ 28] At trial, Marquis argued, "I think the State's entitled to some leeway.
[¶ 6] The State argues that the issue was not preserved and that the court did not commit obvious error pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 52(b).See State v. Allen 2006 ME 21, ¶ 9 n. 3, 892 A.2d 456, 459. The State contends that Snow failed to make an offer of proof regarding the substance of Keerstin's testimony, and failed to provide the grounds on which Keerstin's or Joyce's testimony was admissible.
[¶ 28] We have previously provided that "photographs are admissible if they are (1) accurate depictions; (2) relevant; and (3) if their probative value is not outweighed by any tendency toward unfair prejudice." State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 10, 892 A.2d 456, 459. A photograph may be unfairly prejudicial when it "has an undue tendency to move the tribunal to decide on an improper basis, commonly, though not always, an emotional one."
[¶22] A photograph is admissible if (1) it is an accurate depiction; (2) it is relevant; and (3) its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. SeeState v. Allen , 2006 ME 21, ¶ 10, 892 A.2d 456. Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and ... [t]he fact is of consequence in determining the action."
But we have recognized an exception to the requirement that the opposing party voice an objection when the court characterizes its pretrial ruling as final and unequivocal. SeeState v. Allen , 2006 ME 21, ¶ 9 n.3, 892 A.2d 456 ; see also M.R. Evid. 103(e) ("A pretrial objection to ... evidence must be timely renewed at trial unless the court states on the record, or the context clearly demonstrates, that a ruling on the objection ... is final."). [¶14] Here, the court arguably framed its ruling announced at the conclusion of the in limine hearing as definitive.
"Although the applicable standard of review is generally depend[e]nt upon whether the alleged error is preserved, we do not need to determine whether" Haji–Hassan preserved his proffer of the removal evidence to impeach Dr. Flomenbaum's qualifications and capabilities as an expert. SeeState v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 9, 892 A.2d 456. We assume, without deciding, that Haji–Hassan's arguments and the court's ruling at the hearing on the State's motion in limine served to preserve the objection, and we therefore apply the clear error and "abuse of discretion standard[s] of review, which [are] more beneficial to [Haji–Hassan] than the obvious error standard."
M.R. Evid. 402. On this record, the court acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence of Kimball's drinking was not unfairly prejudicial, and that it was for the jury to determine the weight to give that evidence. See M.R. Evid. 403 ; State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 13, 892 A.2d 456 (“To sustain a Rule 403 objection, the prejudice must be more than simply damage to the opponent's cause.” (quotation marks omitted)).
We affirmed both convictions. State v. Allen, 2006 ME 20, ¶ 1, 892 A.2d 447; State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 1, 892 A.2d 456. [¶ 6] In its jeopardy order, the court concluded that the father's inability to grasp the severity of the violence to which the son had been subjected, based primarily on the parents' continued belief that his death was caused by an undiagnosed seizure disorder brought on by a vaccination, “present [s] a threat of serious harm or serious injury to [the twins].”
“An issue is deemed to be raised or preserved if there is a sufficient basis in the record to alert the trial court ... and any opposing party to the existence of that issue,” Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 402(a) at 243 (4th ed.2013) (quotation marks omitted), and “a motion in limine may preserve a Rule 403 objection to the admission of evidence when the court's ruling on the motion is unequivocally final.” State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 9 n. 3, 892 A.2d 456 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the court's ruling on the motion in limine and Hassan's renewal of the objection at trial was unequivocally final.