Committee recommends 'ought not to pass' on proposed changes to strangulation law after contested briefs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After extended testimony from defense attorneys, public defenders, prosecutors and advocates, the Judiciary Committee voted 9–0 (5 absent) to recommend 'ought not to pass' on LD 1572, citing the need for more work to reconcile divergent views on whether and how to treat strangulation and suffocation in aggravated-domestic-assault statutes.
The Judiciary Committee heard competing views on LD 1572, which would change prosecution standards for nonfatal strangulation and suffocation in domestic-violence cases. The session featured testimony from criminal-defense counsel, the Maine Commission on Public Defense Services, the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, and the Maine Prosecutors Association.
Matt Morgan, president of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, urged caution about making strangulation or suffocation standalone bases for a class B aggravated-assault charge. He presented jury-instruction excerpts and argued that the statutory language historically has treated strangulation as one circumstance that may demonstrate "extreme indifference to the value of human life," rather than replacing that element outright.
"The statute includes strangulation as a circumstance that manifests extreme indifference to the value of human life," Morgan told the committee, and he said jury instructions and appellate practice support an interpretation that extreme indifference remains an element to be proven.
Frayla Charpini, who has served as both a prosecutor and later as chief public defender for the region, said she has seen strangulation prosecutions on both sides of the aisle and warned that overly broad definitions could sweep incidental contact into felony cases and significantly raise defense costs. Still, Charpini acknowledged strangulation and suffocation can be deadly and said there may be policy reasons to emphasize those harms while ensuring appropriate statutory safeguards.
Andrea Mangfuso of the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence (representing the abuse commission) presented two amendment approaches: one (Proposal A) separates strangulation and suffocation into distinct paragraphs while retaining bodily-injury language; a second (Proposal B) groups them together. Advocates urged clearer statutory language and better data collection so prosecutors and courts apply a consistent standard.
After deliberation and a caucus, Representative Sato moved 'ought not to pass' to allow more time for advocates, defenders and prosecutors to reach workable language; the motion passed 9–0 with five members absent. Several members said they were reluctant to support 'ought not to pass' but felt the statute requires a more comprehensive rewrite and a consensus-driven approach.