111 A.3d 31
Me.2015Background
- Clifford W. Thornton was indicted by a Washington County grand jury on nine counts of sexual offenses arising from conduct against three victims; Counts IV–IX concerned a single victim born March 25, 1993.
- Count IX alleged unlawful sexual contact as a Class B offense based on an alleged victim age under 12 during the charged period (Sept. 17, 2005–Mar. 24, 2006).
- At trial the State proved the victim’s birthdate and that sexual contact occurred periodically from about age 3 until she turned 13.
- After both parties rested, the prosecutor discovered the Count IX time frame in the indictment implied the victim was age 12–13, inconsistent with the Class B allegation.
- Over Thornton’s objection the court permitted the State to amend Count IX to allege the victim was under 14 (a Class C offense), and the jury convicted Thornton of Counts IV–IX.
- The court amended the judgment to correct a scrivener’s error reflecting Count IX as Class C and Thornton appealed, challenging the amendment and certain evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thornton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly permitted amendment of Count IX of the indictment before verdict | Amendment to change alleged victim age to under 14 was permissible because the Class C offense is a lesser included offense and amendment did not change the substance of the crime | Amendment effectively reduced the indictment without resubmission to the grand jury and altered the substance of the charge in violation of Rule 7 | The amendment was permissible; Class C unlawful sexual contact is a lesser included offense of the Class B charge and the amendment did not constitute an improper substantive change |
| Whether the jury could be required to consider the lesser-included offense | State argued it had ethical duty to correct allegation and requested jury consider the lesser alternative | Thornton objected to amendment and challenged allowing the jury to convict on the amended (lesser) charge | The court was required to instruct the jury on the Class C lesser included offense because there was a rational basis in the evidence and the State requested it |
| Whether the amendment violated grand jury indictment requirements | State relied on Rule 7(e) and the lesser-included-offense doctrine to avoid resubmission | Thornton argued the amendment altered the indictment’s essential allegation (victim age) and required grand jury resubmission | Amendment did not require resubmission because it was a form amendment that did not change the substance of the charged crime; no error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for remaining convictions and evidentiary challenges | State maintained evidence supported convictions and contested evidentiary rulings were harmless | Thornton challenged admission of certain testimony and an exhibit omission | Court found challenges unpersuasive, concluded record supports convictions, and did not further address those evidentiary claims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Severy, 8 A.3d 715 (Me. 2010) (background on charged conduct and victim testimony)
- State v. Gauthier, 939 A.2d 77 (Me. 2007) (Rule 7(e) amendment/resubmission framework)
- State v. Bailey, 989 A.2d 716 (Me. 2010) (standard of review for indictment amendment)
- State v. Gantnier, 55 A.3d 404 (Me. 2012) (criteria for lesser-included-offense instructions)
- State v. Corliss, 706 A.2d 593 (Me. 1998) (indictment must allege every element of the offense)
- State v. Mercier, 87 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (sufficiency support for convictions)