State v. Donovan

CLIFFORD, J.,

with whom RUDMAN, J., joins, dissenting.

[¶21] Because this Court ignores our prior case law on when identity of the defendant is at issue in a criminal trial, and fails to construe 15 M.R.S.A. § 2138(4)(E) (2003) in the context of other provisions of' the same statute, in effect leaving the “identity at issue” language of *777section 2138(4)(E) without significant meaning, I respectfully dissent.

[¶22] The Superior Court determined that Donovan failed to present prima facie proof that identity was at issue during the trial, and concluded that, in order to satisfy section 2138(4)(E),…