249 A.3d 132
Me.2021Background
- Hodgdon was criminally charged (eight-count indictment) for sexual offenses alleged to have occurred when the alleged victim was in middle school; jury convicted him on three counts, and he was sentenced.
- At trial the court granted Hodgdon’s motion in limine excluding the recording or any reference to creation of a recording, but defense counsel later introduced the full transcript and recording of the alleged victim’s police interview into evidence during cross-examination.
- The State’s case rested entirely on the alleged victim’s testimony; there was no physical or eyewitness corroboration. Trial counsel did not request a specific-unanimity jury instruction and the court did not give one.
- On post-conviction review Hodgdon argued (1) counsel was ineffective for introducing the full interview and (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to request a specific-unanimity instruction; the post-conviction court vacated two convictions (Counts 6 & 7) for lack of unanimity but denied relief as to the remaining gross sexual assault conviction (Count 5).
- After the post-conviction decision, this Court decided Watson v. State, which held that playing a victim’s entire police interview could constitute ineffective assistance; Hodgdon sought reconsideration and appealed for a certificate of probable cause.
- The Court held counsel’s unredacted admission of the interview was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial in this case, undermining confidence in the verdict, vacated the remaining conviction (Count 5), and remanded to enter full post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Hodgdon’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s introduction of the full police interview (transcript & recording) was ineffective assistance | Introducing the entire interview was unnecessary, exposed prejudicial, otherwise inadmissible material, and bolstered the victim’s credibility | Counsel made a reasonable trial strategy to impeach credibility; evidence could be useful to undermine victim | Counsel’s decision was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial in this case; constituted ineffective assistance; conviction vacated |
| Whether a specific-unanimity jury instruction was required for Count 5 and whether failing to request it was ineffective assistance | Jury could have relied on multiple distinct incidents; Hodgdon was entitled to specific-unanimity instruction; failure may be ineffective | Trial court and State argued only one incident supported Count 5, so instruction not required | Court held specific-unanimity instruction was required for Count 5 (post-conviction court erred in saying otherwise); the Court did not decide ineffective-assistance prong for that failure because relief was granted on the recording issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Watson v. State, 230 A.3d 6 (Me. 2020) (holding playing an alleged victim’s full police interview can be unreasonable and prejudicial in a he-said/she-said case)
- Philbrook v. State, 167 A.3d 1266 (Me. 2017) (standard for assessing whether counsel’s choices fall below ordinary competence)
- Fortune v. State, 34 A.3d 1115 (Me. 2011) (specific-unanimity instruction required when multiple incidents could support a single charge)
- Hanscom v. State, 152 A.3d 632 (Me. 2016) (explains unanimity requirement when separate similar incidents support a charge)
- Reynolds v. State, 193 A.3d 168 (Me. 2018) (totality of evidence governs need for specific-unanimity instruction)
- McGowan v. State, 894 A.2d 493 (Me. 2006) (criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel)
- Middleton v. State, 129 A.3d 962 (Me. 2015) (deference to trial counsel’s strategic decisions)
- Ford v. State, 205 A.3d 896 (Me. 2019) (recites Strickland standard and appellate review posture)
- State v. Hodgdon, 164 A.3d 959 (Me. 2017) (direct appeal of these convictions)