Opinion
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-17-859
06-20-2017
STATE OF MAINE v. MATTHEW BRASIER, Defendant
STATE OF MAINE
CUMBERLAND, ss ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and motion for a bill of particulars. Defendant argues the State must identify a particular date or time on which defendant allegedly committed the offenses as opposed to "on or about August 15, 2016 and October 15, 2016." The State argues that although defendant and the alleged victim signed a contract on a certain date, they were in continuous discussion and negotiation regarding the work to be completed during the time period alleged in the indictment.
Defendant has received discovery and, based on the State's theory of the case, can use the information provided to "prepare an adequate defense, to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, and to establish a record upon which to plead double jeopardy if necessary." State v. Flynn, 2015 ME 149, ¶ 27, 127 A.3d 1239; see State v. Varney, 641 A.2d 185, 186 (Me. 1994) (State is "not required to file a bill of particulars when it cannot pinpoint the date of an alleged offense with any greater specificity than it has in the indictment.") (citation and internal quotation omitted).
The entry is:
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Bill of Particulars are DENIED.Date: June 20, 2017
/s/_________
Nancy Mills
Justice, Superior Court