State of Maine v. Benjamin H. Hodgdon II, 164 A.3d 959

Hodgdon, a former middle-school teacher/coach, had a sexual relationship with the victim beginning when she was in junior high; she testified the first encounter occurred when she was 12 and they had repeated sexual contact before she finished junior high.
The victim reported the abuse in 2013; Hodgdon was indicted in 2014 on multiple counts, including gross sexual assault (victim under 14), unlawful sexual contact (victim under 14), and sexual abuse of a minor (victim 14–15).
At trial the State relied primarily on the victim’s testimony; Hodgdon denied sexual contact while she was a minor and presented witnesses and other evidence challenging timing and credibility.
The trial court instructed the jury on each element (including age) but also gave an "on or about" timing instruction; the jury convicted on one gross sexual assault count, one unlawful sexual contact count, and one sexual-abuse-of-a-minor count.
On appeal Hodgdon raised three main issues: (1) jury instructions improperly allowed conviction without proof the victim was under 14 for Counts 5 and 6; (2) indictment timing posed double jeopardy risk; and (3) insufficiency of the evidence to prove offenses occurred before the victim’s 14th birthday.

Issue	Hodgdon's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the "on or about" jury instruction relieved State of proving victim was under 14 for Counts 5–6	The instruction allowed jury to convict without finding victim’s age element beyond reasonable doubt	Jury was separately and repeatedly instructed on each element including age; burden remained with State	Court affirmed: instructions as a whole adequately required proof of age; no obvious error
Whether the indictment’s broad/elastic timing exposes Hodgdon to double jeopardy	The elastic time periods and verdict ambiguity could permit reprosecution for same acts	Indictment dates plus victim’s birthday give clear temporal parameters; Lyon reasoning protects against double jeopardy	Court affirmed: temporal parameters suffice to avoid double jeopardy concerns
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove sexual acts occurred before victim turned 14	Testimony was unreliable; Hodgdon produced contrary witnesses and explanation for later admitted act at age 18	Victim gave specific details placing first encounter in Jan/Feb 2000; jury may credit her testimony	Court affirmed: viewing evidence in State's favor, jury could rationally find elements beyond reasonable doubt

State v. Westgate, 148 A.3d 716 (Me. 2016) (similar "on or about" instruction created risk jury could bypass age element; conviction vacated where elements not fully instructed)
State v. Lyon, 131 A.3d 918 (Me. 2016) (upheld conviction despite "on or about" dates where evidence and indictment read together supply temporal parameters protecting double jeopardy)
State v. Tucker, 117 A.3d 595 (Me. 2015) (court must review jury instructions as a whole to ensure correct statement of governing law)
State v. Troy, 86 A.3d 591 (Me. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. Cloutier, 695 A.2d 550 (Me. 1997) (permitting conviction despite victim testimony that some acts occurred after indictment date where overall temporal parameters were adequate)