Submitted On Briefs: September 26, 2018.
M. Healy, Esq., Law Offices of Peter J. Cyr, Portland, for
appellant Scott F. Matatall
Stephanie Anderson, District Attorney, William J. Barry,
Asst. Dist. Atty., and Briana Esposito, Stud. Atty.,
Prosecutorial District No. Two, for appellee State of Maine
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and
Scott F. Matatall appeals from a judgment of conviction for
operating under the influence (OUI) with one prior OUI
offense (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. §2411(1-A)(C)(2) (2017),
entered by the court (Cumberland County, Fhtzsche,
/.) following a jury trial. He argues that the court abused
its discretion when, although it imposed a discovery sanction
on the State by excluding a challenged video recording from
the State's case-in-chief, it ordered that the State
would be permitted to use the recording to impeach Matatall
if Matatall testified and contradicted what the video showed.
See State v. Landry, 459 A.2d 175, 177-78 (Me.
1983). The court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm
On July 31, 2017, Matatall was charged by complaint with OUI
with one prior OUI offense (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. §
24ll(l-A)(C)(2). He pleaded not guilty, and a jury trial was
promptly scheduled and held on January 10, 2018.
Immediately before trial, Matatall's counsel moved to
exclude a video recording of Matatall at the police station.
The basis of the motion was the State's failure to notify
Matatall of the video until two days before
trial. The State sought to offer the video in
support of its allegations that Matatall refused to take an
Intoxilyzer test and that Matatall was intoxicated and
slurring his words.
The court ruled that because of the State's late
disclosure, it would not be permitted to introduce the video
in its case in chief. However, the State would be permitted
to introduce the recording if Matatall testified and
"clearly contradicted" the video
The State's only witness at trial was the police officer
who pulled over and ultimately arrested Matatall. Following
the officer's testimony, the State asked the court to
clarify with Matatall's counsel that, should Matatall
testify, he would risk introduction of the video. Despite
this clear ruling from the court, Matatall, after
consultation with counsel, chose to testify and contradicted
the video evidence. Matatall renewed his objection of the
video in evidence, and the court allowed the State to impeach
Matatall on cross-examination with admission of the video.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. After hearing
sentencing recommendations from both parties, the court
entered a judgment of conviction, sentencing Matatall to six
months' imprisonment, with all but twenty-one days
suspended, a three-year license suspension, and a fine and
assessments of $1, 130. Matatall timely ...