Background
After his former partner called 9-1-1 to report that Hart threatened to kill her and banged on her hotel-room door, police found Hart nearby. During the encounter, Hart sent the victim Facebook messages urging her to tell police that she had overreacted. After Hart was arrested and processed at the county jail, officials found drugs, including cocaine base, concealed on his person.
A grand jury initially charged Hart with seven offenses. After the State learned that the alleged assault occurred outside Androscoggin County, it obtained a superseding indictment that dropped the assault counts, substituted domestic violence criminal threatening for domestic violence terrorizing, and added an alternative victim-tampering charge. Hart unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for double jeopardy and prosecutorial vindictiveness and to suppress statements. He then entered a conditional guilty plea to tampering with a victim, domestic violence criminal threatening, and possession of cocaine base, preserving those issues for appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. It held that the superseding indictment did not create a reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial vindictiveness. The change was made before trial, and Hart identified only routine pretrial motions and timing—not facts suggesting retaliation for exercising a legal right. The court also noted that the State had objective reasons for its charging decisions: venue problems with the assault charges and constitutional concerns surrounding the prior terrorizing charge.
The court further held that Hart’s statements to jail officials had already been suppressed under the State’s concession to exclude all statements made after a specified point in the recorded police encounter. It rejected Hart’s additional arguments: alternative tampering counts did not require dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds, and the trial court correctly found that Hart was not in custody for Miranda purposes when officers initially asked him to exit his car in the parking lot.
Key Takeaways
- A pretrial superseding indictment does not presumptively show vindictiveness merely because it follows defense motions or increases a charge.
- Prosecutors may rebut any claimed inference of vindictiveness with objective reasons for revised charges.
- Alternative counts do not violate double jeopardy when any multiplicitous counts can be merged before judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the federal pretrial-vindictiveness framework to late-stage charging changes and emphasizes that timing alone is insufficient. Defendants must identify circumstances supporting a realistic inference of retaliatory motive.
It also confirms that a defendant cannot obtain further suppression relief for statements already covered by the State’s concession and the suppression order.