Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Doak
Citations: 651 A.2d 342; 1994 Me. LEXIS 327
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine; December 18, 1994; Maine; State Supreme Court
Defendant Richard Doak appeals a conviction for assault on a child, arguing errors related to the competency of a child witness, limitations on voir dire, prosecutorial statements during closing arguments, and insufficient evidence for conviction. The court affirmed the judgment. The trial evidence included testimony from the victim's mother, who noted injuries on the victim after a visit to Doak's apartment. A DHS examination revealed lesions consistent with cigarette burns, and a physician testified that the injuries likely occurred around the time of the visit. The victim's sister testified that she witnessed Doak burn the victim, though she could not identify him as "Rick." Doak and others testified he was never alone with the children. Regarding the competency of the child witness, the court found the sister capable of testifying, adhering to the standards of M.R.Evid. 601(b). The appellate review found no clear error in this ruling. The court also limited the voir dire questioning of the sister, which Doak challenged but did not pursue further after the court's instruction that the inquiry would not be a cross-examination. Ultimately, the jury found Doak guilty. The court reviews for an abuse of discretion based on precedent in State v. Robinson. In Rippy, it was determined that a child witness was not competent to testify due to her inability to recall significant life details, except for the assault incident. The defendant contends that Rippy mandates exploration into the offense's circumstances during voir dire; however, the current record does not require defining the limits of voir dire since the defendant did not pursue further questioning after initial discussions. The objection to the witness's competency could have been raised during the trial based on her memory lapses. The court had previously allowed inquiries about the witness's teacher, residence, and caretakers, leading to the conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion. Regarding prosecutorial comments on credibility during closing arguments, the absence of an objection leads to a review for obvious error. The jury holds the exclusive authority to assess witness credibility, and lawyers, especially prosecutors, must avoid personal opinions on this matter. The prosecutor's statement that a witness's testimony was "credible" is disapproved but not deemed prejudicial enough to affect the trial's fairness. Overall, the evidence, when viewed favorably for the prosecution, supports the jury's conclusion of the defendant's guilt for child assault, despite the sister's inability to identify him specifically. The judgment is affirmed, with all justices concurring.