State v. Theriault

Full title: STATE OF MAINE, v. JODI THERIAULT, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

Date published: Jan 22, 2024

No. CD-CR-22-4132 (Me. Super. Jan. 22, 2024)

Opinion

CD-CR-22-4132

01-22-2024

STATE OF MAINE, v. JODI THERIAULT, Defendant

Hon. Jed J. French, Judge

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS & MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

Hon. Jed J. French, Judge

This action came before the Court on January 5, 2024, on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Additional Discovery. The Court held a hearing on these motions at which counsel for Defendant, Peter E. Rodway, Esq., was present, as well as Assistant Attorneys General Kendra E. Lychwala, Esq. and Gregg Bernstein, Esq. for the State of Maine.

After consideration of the arguments at hearing, the Court FINDS and ADJUDGES the following:

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss argues that the indictment against Defendant should be dismissed as a result of unreasonable pre-indictment delay resulting in Defendant being unable to obtain certain records primarily from her bank and doctors' offices. Defendant argues that these records are necessary to confirm that the discovery provided by the State is a true and complete reflection of Defendant's records.

Defendant intends to bring a defense at trial based on delay in the State prosecuting this case, arguing the State did not charge Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § (8)(2). That provision of Title 17-A states that prosecution for a Class A, B, or C crime must commence within six years after the alleged criminal conduct has been committed. Defendant has been charged by the State with Theft by Deception, Class B, via an indictment dated October 6, 2022. Defendant argues that this indictment was filed after the six-year statute of limitations because the State's investigation into the alleged criminal conduct of Defendant "continued for five years past the latest conceivable criminal act," which is alleged to have occurred on December 30, 2016. See, Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Indictment, filed November 22, 2023.

At hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant reserved the statute of limitations issue for trial. Therefore, the Court only addresses whether Defendant has shown that pre-indictment delay by the State has resulted in actual and unjustifiable prejudice. State v. Cote, 2015 ME 78, ¶ 21,118 A.3d 805; see also, United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1977). Only if a defendant can show actual and unjustifiable delay resulting from pre-indictment delay, a court may "inquire as to the reasons for the delay that may be offered by the State and determine, on balance, whether the prejudice caused by the delay remains unjustifiable." Cote, 2015 ME 78, ¶ 21,118 A.3d 805. Proving prejudice from pre-indictment delay is a "heavy burden." Id. at ¶ 24, quoting U.S. v. McCoy, 977 F.2d 706, 711 (1^st Cir. 1992).

Defendant argues that bank records are unavailable to her because of the delay, and this results in an inability to essentially confirm that the records the State has are not only complete, but true and accurate. However, the State will need to authenticate and prove at trial that these records are complete, true and accurate by presenting a witness who can provide evidence to that effect pursuant to M.R. Evid. 803(6). Defendant has failed to prove how not obtaining these records herself has resulted in actual and unjustifiable prejudice.

Defendant's next argument regarding accessing medical records is based on the assertion that Defendant is unable to recall which doctors she saw and when, which relate to her receiving benefits from MaineCare. Again, Defendant has failed to prove how they are actually and unjustifiably prejudiced by this issue. Any relevant evidence pertaining to Defendant receiving MaineCare benefits has been provided in discovery by the State. While Defendant may not recall specifics of her past treatment, without more, Defendant has failed to prove how she has been actually and unjustifiably prejudiced by her inability to recall which healthcare providers she saw and when.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court does not find actual and unjustifiable prejudice has occurred as a result of pre-indictment delay by the State. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, thereby DENYING Defendant's Motion for Additional Discovery as a result.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order by reference on the docket for the case pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).