Submitted On Briefs: April 27, 2017
Pratt, Esq. and Ellen Simmons, Esq., Camden, for appellant
Maeghan Maloney, District Attorney, and Alisa Ross, Asst.
Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District IV, Augusta, for appellee
State of Maine
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and
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
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).
"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.
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.
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.
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
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