State of Maine v. Peaslee

"STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET
AROOSTOOK,ss DOCKET NO. AROCD-CR-18-30028

STATE OF MAINE )
)
)
)
vs. ) ORDER AND DECISION
) REGARDING
) JvIOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
)
JM!JES PEASLEE )
Defendant )

Before the court is Defendant, James Peaslee's, Motion for New Trial brought

pursuant to M.R.U.Crim. P. 33. By an Indictment dated February 8, 2018, Peaslee

was charged with the intentional or knowing murder ofPaul Hilenski, 17-A,

M.R.S. 201(1)(A). Trail was held in June, 2019, and on June 11, 2019 the jury

returned a verdict of guilty. Following trial, the State provided additional discovery

to Peaslee which included a statement made by Stephanie Vierkant to a detective

of the Maine State Police in which she reported an interaction with George

Peaslee, Peaslee's brother with a similar appearance. According to the motion, in

her statement, Vierkant told the detective that "George anived crying and

hysterical stating he was the one who actually killed the stepfather, because of all

the abuse he and James had taken at the hands of his stepfather." Based upon the

additional discovery, Peaslee moves for a new trial.

1
An evidentiary hearing on Peaslee's motion was held November 12, 2019. At

hearing, testimony was received from Dr. Daniel Bannish, Clinical Director at the

Maine State Prison, Intensive Mental Health Unit (hereafter IMHU), Stephanie

Vierkant, Det. Lawrence Anderson of the Maine State Police, and Lt. Troy

Gardner of the Maine State Police. Also received in evidence as Exhibit 1 is the

video recording of the interview of George Peaslee conducted by Det. Anderson on

January 18, 2018, less than 24 hours after the shooting of Paul Hilenski. From the

evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, and also evidence presented at trial,

the court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions, to wit:

FINDINGS OF FACTS

l .Evidentiary !{earing

a. Yn:e 11:ewly discovered evidence.

At about 1Opm on an evening within just a few days of the shooting, Stephanie

Vierkant was at the trailer of Robin Cobb to purchase methamphetamine. She had

been at the trailer a few minutes when George Peaslee arrived to also purchase

drugs. George was crying and appeared upset when he arrived. After entering,

George sat down on the couch. Not talking specifically to Veirkant, with his head

2
in his hands, Veirkant heard George say "I can't believe they arrested my f------

brother for something I did." Veirkant left the trailer a few minutes later after she

obtained her drugs. Other than her mother, Veirkant did not tell anyone about what

she overheard George say.

In July, 2019, after the jury returned its verdict finding Peaslee guilty of murder,

Veirkant was processed at the Cumberland County Jail. In some small talk with the

caseworker while being processed, it came up that Veirkan.t was from Aroostook

County, which lead to Veirkant inquiring if James Peaslee was in the Cmnberland

County Jail. Veirkant then said to the caseworker that Peaslee " ..was in jail for

something he didn't do cause someone else told me they did it". The caseworker

promptly relayed this statement to law enforcement, which led to the prompt

disclosure to Peaslee's defense lawyers.

b. George Peaslee 's Mental Health Status and History

At the time of this hearing, George is being held at the Th1HU at the Maine State

Prison. At the IMHU he has been examined and treated by Dr. B a1U1ish on multiple

occasions. Per the te~~:imony o~Dr. Bannish, George is bipolar and suffers from

manic psychotic episodes. George has been held at the IMHU on two prior

occasions. Interestingly, one of George's prior presentations to the HvfHU was in

3
January, 2018. At all admissions to the HvlHU George presented. in a manic state,

holding delusional and disorganized thoughts. Per Dr. Bannish, George is presently

delusional, with disorganized thoughts, is incomprehensible, and is incapable of

testifying. Accordingly, the court finds George is unavailable as a witness to

provide testimony under oath.

From Dr. Bannish's testimony the court also finds that George has a longstanding

mental health condition, in which he cycles through periods of delusional and

disorganized thoughts and beliefs, particularly when he is not !aking his prescrib.e d

medications. His mental health condition is exacerbated by illicit drug use. When

cycling through a manic psychotic state, George is not responsive to questions, he

cannot stay on track with the conversations, he makes unreliable statements which,

as Dr. Bannish stated, will be mixed with grains of truth, and he makes many

unusual sexual references . When in a manic psychotic state, it is difficult to sort

out from George's statements what is truthful and what is not.

c. Interviews ofGeorge Peaslee

Viewed during the hearing was the video recording of George's interview

conducted by Detectives Anderson and Lindsey the day after the arrest of James

Peaslee. The video shows George having a mustache and some facial hair, and

4
several tattoos on his arms. Although George's appearance observed in the video

arguably shares some similarities with James Peaslee, George's overall appearance

is distinct from his brother James.

At the commencement of the interview, George appeared calm and even. But when

he was told his brother had been atTested for the murder ofPaul Hilenski, George

became mildly upset, stating he was angry his brother could be going to prison for

the rest ofhis life. He soon told the detectives he had recently been cut-off from his

medications, including Suboxone.

Through the course ofthe interview, George made several statements indicating

his dislike for Paul H~lenski. George's dislike stems from his belief Mr. Hil.enski

mistreated his mother, abused he and his siblings, and that he had cheated them of

their mother's insurance and property following her death. As the defense points

out, this is the same motive that James Peaslee was alleged to have had. And

George told the officers he had he even thought of killing Mr. Hilenski because of

his beliefthat Mr. Hilenski raped his fiance in the presence of his two-year old son.

But throughout the course ofthe interview, George denied having anything to do

with the murder.

As the interview progressed, George repeatedly went off-topic, in. rambli~g

sentences non-responsive to the questions posed. Some of his statements were

grandiose (a relative having worked wit~ Neil Armstrong to go to the moon) and

5

••
sensationalizing his own personal strength and physical abilities(an incident when

he threw Mr. Hilenski several feet, working out several hours a day, and an ability

to do handstands). He made several incredulous statements describing his sexual

experiences (sexual acts with numerous ladies), and also numerous, unrealistic

descriptions of genitalia and the effects of sexual abuse to his fiance(references to

the size ofMr. Helins!d 's genitals, and description ofhis fiance 's genitalia after

the supposed rape) . Several times George described incidents in which he

believed he was being taken advantage of, or cheated by others (his apartment

being broken into and belongings stolen on several occasions), and that people

could read his mind and lmow what he was thinking before he did ("I know I'm

being app 'd"), leading further to his exploitation. George also said he hears voices.

As previously indicated, the court finds that George is presently unable to testify as

a witness due to his mental health condition. The court also finds that some of the

symptoms he currently suffers from leading to his inability to testify were also

exhibited by him during his his interview in January, 2018, when he had stopped

taking his medications and was apparently seeking illicit drugs.

6
2. Evidence at Trial

In addition to the evidence received at the motion hearing, the court takes note of

the evidence admitted at trial which the jury had to consider in reaching its guilty

verdict. The evidence would support findings by the jury that:

The victim Paul Hilenski was married to Peaslee's mother, Janet, who died in

November, 2015 as a result of a car accident. Janet died without a will. As the

surviving spouse, Paul received a significant portion of Janet's estate, including the

home in Bridgewater. Peaslee was unhappy that Paul received the home. After

Janet's d~ath, Paul installed a security system that included video recording of the

exterior and interior of the home, including the main entrance to the home.

Paul was killed as a result of gunshot wounds to the chest on January 17, 2018.

The shooting was recorded by the security system Paul had recently installed,

which showed a man running up the driveway, onto the steps, knocking on the

door and then firing multiple shots through the glass of the door. The interior

·cameras of the system showed Paul walking towards the door, momentarily out of

the camera's range, and returning into range with blood showing through his shirt.

Several law enforcement officers who knew both James and George Peaslee

testified that the individual seen in the recording of the shooting was James

7
Peaslee. Officers also testified that they recognized the jacket being worn by the

shooter in the video recording as a jacket seen worn by Peaslee on several prior

occasions. The jury had the opportunity to view the video recordings several times

through the course of trial, as well as ongoing opportunity to observe Peaslee. A

photograph taken of George Peaslee taken shortly after the shooting was also

admitted into evidence for the jury to consider.

Ballistic evidence indicated the bullets that fatally wounded Paul Hilenski were

.380 caliber. Spent .380 casings w_ere found at the scene near the area the recording

of the security system showed the shooter standing when the shots were fired.

The gun used in the shooting was never recovered. But on January 17, 2018, the

day of the shooting, Randall Boyce gave Peaslee a .380 caliber handgun in

exchange for a TV. And a box of .380 caliber bullets with Peaslee's fingerprints on

it was seized by police from Peaslee's home after the shooting.

Cell phone records indicate Peaslee' cell phone was out of service, suggestive it

had been turned off, in the timeframe of and after the shooting, which occurred

shortly before 6pm. Security footage from On the Run convenience
. store in .Mars

Hill showed that Peaslee had entered the store around 4:56 pm the day of the

shooting, wearing a different jacket than that seen in shooting video, which the

8
State theorized was Peaslee's attempt to establish his alibi. An employee of the

convenience store testified she recalled seeing Peaslee when he entered the store

that day, and he acted differently than usual and was grinding his teeth.

And the jury heard from Matthew Clark, who testified that he spoke with Peaslee

in lvlay or June of 2018 while both were in the Aroostook County Jail. Clark

testified that Peaslee told him he'd gone to the convenience store to create an alibi,

that he acquired a .380 caliber handgun, changed his clothes before going to the

Hilenski home, and once there he went to the door, knocked, and when the victim

came to the door he shot him. Clark testified that Peaslee further told him that after

the sh~oting, he drove towards Limestone, threw the gun in the woods, put his

clothes in a trashbag, washed his hands with bleach, and that he knew about the

cameras so covered his tattoos on his arms with cream and clothing. Clark also

testified Peaslee told him he shot his stepfather over the property.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

1. Newly Discovered Evidence

Motions for a new trial on the grotmd of newly discovered evidence are looked

upon with disfavor, in light of the need for finality and for the preservation of the

9
integrity of criminal judgments. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d 523,531 (Me. 2013). A

defendant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evid~nce must establish

by clear and convincing evidence that-

1. the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is

granted;

2. it has been discovered since the trial;

3. it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due

diligence;

4. it is material to the issue; and

5. it is not merely cumulative or impeaching, unless it is clear that such

impeachment would have resulted in a different verdict. Twargus, 72 A.3d at 531-

532.

The Law Court has described the burden in seeking a new trial based on newly

discovered evidence as a heavy one:

It is not enough for the defendant to show that there is a possibility or a
chance ofa different verdict. It must be made to appear that, in light ofthe overall
testimony, new and old, another jury ought to give a different verdict; there must
be a probability that a new trial would result in a different verdict.
Twargus, 72 A.3d at 532; citing State v. Dechaine, 630 A.2d 234,236 (Me. 1993).

This newly discovered evidence identified in Peaslee's motion surfaced after trial,

in July, 2019 when Vierkant told to a caseworker at the Cumberland County Jail

what she allegedly heard George say in January 2018. This information was

10
promptly relayed to the investigators and the prosecution, who promptly relayed

the information to Peaslee' s defense. The Defense concedes, and the court finds

there is no Brady violation. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S. Ct. 1936

(1999). Therefore, flS will he discussed more fully, infra, the primary question is

whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict

with the new evidence, and not, had there been a Brady violation, whether in the

absence ofthe new evidence the defendant received a fair trial resulting in a verdict

worthy of confidence. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d 523, 533 (Me. 2013); citing Kyles

v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419,434, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995).

There is no question that due to his present mental health, George Peaslee is

unavailable as a witness to testify under oath. Accordingly, addressing Peaslee's

motion requires the additional analysis whether George's statement made in

Vierkant' s presence is admissible.

2. Statement Against Interest

Peaslee argues the Vierkant' s testimony to what she overheard George Peaslee

state is admissible as a statement against interest pursuant to Rule 804(b)(3). For

an out-of-court statement to be admissible pursuant to Rule 804(b)(3):

1. the declarant must be unavailable as a witness;

11
2. the statement must so far tend to subject the declarant to criminal

responsibility that a reasonable person in his position would not have made the

statement unless he believed it to be true; and

1. the statement must be corroborated by circumstances that clearly indicates

its trustworthiness.

State vs. Cochran, 2000 11:E 78, ~11.

To satisfy the trustworthiness prong, four additional factors are considered:

L the time of the declaration and the party to whom it was made;

2. tJ;ie existence of corroborating evidence in the case;

3. whether the declaration is inherently inconsistent with ~he accused's guilt;

and

4. whether at the time of the incriminating state1nent the declarant had any

probable motive to falsify.

Cochran, at 112.

The court will first discuss whether George's statement made in Vierkant's

presence is admissible, and then discuss whether a new trial be granted.

12
DISCUSSION

1. Is George's statement made in Vierkant's presence admissible?

There is no question that due to his mental health, George is presently unavailable

as a witness. The first prong of Rule 804(b)(3) and Cochran is satisfied. However,

the third prong of Rule 804(b)(3) and Cochran, the question of trustworthiness, is

doubtful.

Although the statement was made in Veirkant' s presence, George was not speaking

directly to Veirkant. 1 George arrived at the trailer, to acquire illicit drugs. He had

recently stopped taking his prescribed medications. Sitting on the couch, Veirkant

described George as upset, crying, and holding his head in his hands when he

spontaneously made the statement. The statement was not made in response to any

discussions with Vierkant.

Although it is not definitive whether Det. Anderson's interview of George

occurred before or after Vierkant' s encounter with George, the evidence does

establish the two events occmTed very close in time, both within a day or so of

Peaslee's arrest. George's condition observed in the video recording of his

1 A statement made in response to a question or part of a conversation is deemed more reliable and trustworthy than

a statement made to oneself, or not part of a direct conversation with another.

13
interview is indicative of his condition when Vierkant enc01mtered him. As

previously discussed, at the time of the interview, George repeatedly went off

topic, and was non-responsive to the questions posed; he made grandiose

statements of a relative's accomplishments and of his own strength and abilities

and sexual experiences; and he expressed unrealistic descriptions of genitalia,

particularly regarding his fiance. With the assistance of Dr. Bannish's testimony

which explain George's diagnoses, mental health history and description of his

delusional and disorganized beliefs when suffering from a made psychotic pe1iod,

coupled with his being off his medications and seeking illicit drugs at that time, the

court believes some level of manic psychosis was present during the interview. The

interview and the encounter with Vierkant occurring close in time, the court also

finds it likely George was suffering some degree of manic psychosis during his

encounter with Vierkant when George was seeking drugs. Observing George's

condition during his interview with Det. Anderson, the court cannot find a

statement made by him within the same timeframe, while upset, crying, and

seeking drugs, to be t11Jstworthy. The court finds that the requirements ofRule
'

8 04(b)(3) and the Cochran factors for trustworthiness are not satisfied. 2

2 The same reasoning calls into question whether the second prong of Rule 804(b)(3) is capable ofbeing satisfied, as

George's mental health condition would impair his ability to act as a reasonable person would.

14
Accordingly, the court finds that George's statement made within Vierkant's

presence is not admissible.

To complete the discussion however, the court will assume arguendo the statement

made in Vierkant's presence is admissible.

2. Should the newly discovered evidence entitle Peaslee to a new trial?

The statement Vierkant overheard George make was not revealed to law

enforcement until after trial, so was obviously not discovered uP..til then. Short of

interviewing everyone in Aroostook County, it would have been impossible to

discover before. The statement, if admissible, would be material, and was not

merely cumulative or impeaching. Accordingly, the last four factors of the factors

listed in Twardus for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are satisfied.

See State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d 531-532. The pivotal question is whether Peaslee

has established by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence is such as will

probably change the result if a new trial is granted. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d a,t

531. The answer to that question is no.

15
A theme generated by the defense through trial was that it could have been George

Peaslee that committed the murder, and it was George who is s~en in the .

surveillance video of the shooting. Through the trial, the defense asserted that it

was not James Peaslee who is seen doing the shooting. In addition to the videp of

the shooting, and having an opportunity to view Peaslee himself, the jury was also

provided a photograph of George taken shortly after the murder. In short, the jury

had the benefit of watching the surveillance video several times, looking at the

photograph of George, and making its own observations of James Peaslee to reach

its conclusion whether James Peaslee was the shooter seen in the video. And as

previously stated, although they have some similarities, George looks quite distinct

from James. James Peaslee did not have a mustache, while George did. Although

the video was not "movie" quality, it was clear enough to make reasonable

conclusions whether the individual was James Peaslee or George. In short, the

video of the shooting was compelling evidence of James Peaslee's guilt.

But the~e was significant additional evidence. The murder weapon was a .380

caliber handgw1. Although the murder weapon was not recovered, the evidence

showed Peaslee acquired a .380 shortly before the murder, and a box of .380

caliber bullets with his fingerprints were found in his home. And Peaslee confessed

to Matthew Clark that he committed the crime over the dispute involving his

16
mother's property, that he had acquired a .380 caliber gun, gone to a convenience

store to create an alibi, changed clothes, then went to the Hilenski.home, knocked

on the door and when Hilenski came to the door he shot them. He also told Clark

he had gotten rid ofhis clothes and gun. Security camera footage showed Peaslee

did go to a convenience store shortly before the murder, in a jacket different than

seen in the shooting video. But the jacket worn by the shooter in the video was a

jacket that officers testified to seeing Peaslee wear on several prior occasions.

Point being, Matthew Clark had numerous details of the murder consistent with the

evidence of the case, supportive of the view he obtained the information first hand,

and that Peaslee was attempting to create an alibi. And conveniently, the evidence

showed Peaslee's cell phone was off during the time frame of the murder,

consistent with an attempt to conceal his locations.

The evidence the jury had to consider was extremely compelling ofPeaslee's guilt

The newly discovered evidence pales in comparison. If the jury had been presented

with Vierkant's testimony of what she overheard George say, they would have also

been considering that it was something said while George was described as upset,

crying, and seeking drugs- testimony coming from someone seeking drugs herself,

who didn't relay the infmmation until over a year late while entering a jail. And

were the jury to have received Veirkant's testimony, the jury most likely would

17
have also seen the video of George's interview to Det. Anderson. In that video,

they would not just have seen George deny involvement, but also been able to

make their own assessments as to how reliable or credible anything is that George

says and whether he is grounded in reality.

Again, the magnitude of evidence demonstrating Peaslee's guilt is significant. If

the evidence of what Veirkant overheard George say while both of them were

getting drugs was admitted at trial and presented to the jury, the court finds it

would not change the result. See State v. Dobbins, 2019 :rvt:E 116, 150. The coui1

finds that Peaslee has not established by clear and convincing evidence that such

evidence from Veirkant will probably change the result if a new trial was granted.

Again, the standard is not that whether there is a possibility or a chance of a

different verdict; there must be a probability that a new trial would result in a

different verdict. State v. Twardus, 72 A.3d at 532.

Accordingly, Peaslee's motion for a new trial is denied.

"'
Dated: November$019

Justice, Superior Court

18