Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Williamson

Supreme Court of Maine

June 1, 2017

STATE OF MAINE
v.
JOSHUA T. WILLIAMSON

          Submitted On Briefs: April 27, 2017

         Reporter of Decisions

          Jeremy Pratt, Esq. and Ellen Simmons, Esq., Camden, for appellant Joshua Williamson

          Maeghan Maloney, District Attorney, and Alisa Ross, Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District IV, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

          Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

          ALEXANDER, J.

         [¶1] This appeal involves a defendant who, while showing signs of significant impairment, accurately predicted to police officers that he would test at a "point 22, " nearly three times the .08 limit established by law. See29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A)(2) (2016). A jury found him guilty of operating under the influence at a trial where the State had to prove either that Williamsons quantitative breath-alcohol level exceeded that limit or that his mental or physical faculties were impaired however slightly, or to any extent, by alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants that he had consumed. See State v. Atkins, 2015 ME 162, ¶¶ 1, 21, 129 A.3d 952. On appeal, the defendants primary contention is that the State failed to comply with technical requirements for the admission of the Intoxilyzer test result. We affirm the judgment.

         [¶2] Joshua T. Williamson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the trial court (Kennebec County, Marden, J.) after a jury found him guilty of operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. §2411(1-A)(B)(1) (2016), and criminal mischief (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. §806(1)(A) (2016). Williamson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the breath test result pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. § 2431(2) (2016) and that the States late disclosure that one of its witnesses was recently investigated for accidentally shooting himself violated his due process rights pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

         I. CASE HISTORY

         [¶3] "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Rourke, 2017 ME 10, ¶ 2, 154 A.3d 127.

         [¶4] On August 11, 2015, Williamson arrived at his Gardiner home from work between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. and began smoking marijuana and drinking shots of vodka. Williamsons girlfriend arrived home at approximately 5:30 p.m. Her Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee were parked in front of the apartment building in which they lived. She and Williamson had been arguing all day, and she observed him drink vodka straight from the bottle.[1]

         [¶5] At some point, Williamson left to visit a neighbor in the adjacent apartment. The neighbor knocked on Williamsons door later that evening and asked Williamsons girlfriend to retrieve Williamson from the neighbors apartment. Williamson and his girlfriend resumed arguing. He took the keys to her Jeep Grand Cherokee and drove her Jeep into her Ford Explorer, backed up, and drove the Jeep into the Ford again. The neighbor, upon hearing the crash, went outside and observed damage to the vehicles parked outside of the apartment building. The Jeep had a flat tire, and the Ford had a broken taillight.

         [¶6] Approximately twenty minutes later, at 1:54 a.m., Williamson called 9-1-1 to report a domestic dispute. The dispatcher determined, after speaking with Williamson, that his speech was slurred and that he had difficulty answering "straightforward" questions.

         [¶7] Officers of the Gardiner Police Department arrived approximately ten minutes after Williamson called 9-1-1. They observed that Williamson was unsteady on his feet, stumbling over objects, slurring his speech, and exhibiting erratic behavior. He admitted that he had been drinking alcohol since getting home from work hours earlier, but he denied driving. The jury also heard evidence that months later, at a Bureau ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.