The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the theft and forgery convictions of Terri L. Moulton, a former bookkeeper who embezzled $500,000 from her employer between 2019 and 2022. The court issued its decision in *State of Maine v. Terri L. Moulton* on Jan. 29, rejecting multiple challenges raised by the defendant on appeal.
Moulton was convicted following a jury trial in Piscataquis County on one count of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer and one count of forgery. The charges stemmed from her employment as a bookkeeper at Dewitt Machine and Fabrication, where she systematically stole funds and forged the signature of company co-owner Anson Dewitt on checks made payable to herself.
The embezzlement scheme spanned three years, during which Moulton exploited her position of trust to divert substantial company funds for personal use. According to the court record, law enforcement first contacted Moulton at her home on March 3, 2022, as part of the investigation into the missing funds.
On appeal, Moulton raised four primary challenges to her convictions. First, she argued that prosecutorial misconduct occurred when the prosecutor made prejudicial statements to the jury that deprived her of a fair trial. Second, she contended that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying her motion for judicial recusal. Third, Moulton claimed the State violated discovery rules during the proceedings. Finally, she argued the court erred in denying her motion to exclude financial evidence.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Lawrence, systematically addressed each of Moulton's appellate arguments. The five-justice panel included Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Mead, Lawrence, Douglas, and Lipez. The case was argued before the court on Sept. 11, 2025.
Regarding the prosecutorial misconduct claim, the court acknowledged that some of the prosecutor's statements to the jury constituted error. However, the court applied harmless error analysis and determined that these errors did not affect the outcome of the trial or deprive Moulton of fundamental fairness. The court concluded that the errors were harmless given the strength of the evidence against the defendant.
The court rejected Moulton's argument that the trial judge should have recused himself from the case. Judicial recusal motions require a showing that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned or that the judge has a personal bias concerning a party. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's decision to remain on the case, indicating that the circumstances did not warrant recusal under applicable legal standards.
On the discovery violation claim, the court found that the State did not breach its obligations under Maine's criminal discovery rules. Discovery rules require prosecutors to provide defendants with access to evidence that may be favorable to the defense or material to guilt or punishment. The court's analysis suggests that the State met its discovery obligations and that no prejudicial withholding of evidence occurred.
The court also upheld the trial judge's decision to deny Moulton's motion to exclude financial evidence. Defense counsel had sought to bar this evidence as a discovery sanction, arguing that the State's handling of financial records violated discovery procedures. The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the financial evidence, which was central to proving the theft and forgery charges.
The decision reflects the court's application of established legal standards for evaluating claims of trial error. Under Maine law, appellate courts review prosecutorial misconduct claims for prejudicial error and apply harmless error analysis when appropriate. Judicial recusal decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, as are evidentiary rulings and discovery sanctions.
The case highlights the challenges defendants face in overturning criminal convictions on appeal, particularly when the underlying evidence of guilt is substantial. Courts generally require a showing that alleged errors affected the fundamental fairness of the proceedings or likely influenced the jury's verdict.
Moulton's conviction involved significant financial crimes that affected a local business and its owners. The three-year embezzlement scheme represents a serious breach of fiduciary duty and demonstrates the potential consequences when employees abuse positions of trust in financial management roles.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's affirmance of the convictions means Moulton's criminal penalties will stand. The decision also establishes precedent for how Maine courts analyze similar claims of prosecutorial error, judicial bias, and discovery violations in future criminal appeals.
The case was designated as 2026 ME 6 and assigned docket number Pis-24-424, reflecting its progression through Maine's criminal justice system from trial court to the state's highest court.