State of Maine v. Gabriel J. Hansen, 228 A.3d 1082

Hansen, a longtime family friend and occasional babysitter, was accused of repeatedly taking a young child to his bedroom, removing her pants, blindfolding her, and touching her in a way the child described as "hard and soft." The child last was alone with Hansen at his house when she was six.
Hansen was indicted on two counts of gross sexual assault (Class A) and two counts of unlawful sexual contact (Class B).
At trial the State called the victim and her mother; the prosecutor used leading questions on direct of the child, which defense counsel objected to and requested sidebars.
The jury convicted Hansen on both Class B unlawful sexual contact counts and acquitted him on the Class A counts.
Sentencing: ten years imprisonment on the first Class B count; a consecutive ten-year term on the second count, all suspended, with five years probation; Hansen appealed convictions and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Class B unlawful sexual contact	Victim's testimony (age, blindfolded contact, description of touching) proved each element beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence insufficient to establish sexual contact and requisite culpable purpose	Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed
Prosecutor's use of leading questions on child witness	Leading questions permissible and necessary given victim's age and subject matter	Leading questions undermined Hansen's right to a fair trial	Trial court acted within broad discretion; no due process violation
Mother's "first complaint" testimony (hearsay)	Admissible to corroborate that a complaint was made, not offered for truth	Testimony violated first-complaint rule and was hearsay	Admission proper: statement identified complaint without naming defendant; no reversible error; court set out best-practice questioning
Sentencing: proportionality and consecutive terms	Sentences (near statutory maximum, consecutive with second suspended) appropriate given victim's very young age, breach of trust, and Hewey analysis	Sentences disproportionate/extreme and court failed proper analysis for consecutive terms	Court applied Hewey steps, considered aggravating/mitigating factors, did not abuse discretion; no gross disproportionality; consecutive sentences justified

State v. Ouellette, 208 A.3d 399 (Me. 2019) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96 (Me. 1993) (broad trial-court discretion and latitude for leading questions with child witnesses)
State v. Fahnley, 119 A.3d 727 (Me. 2015) (scope and best-practice form of first-complaint testimony)
State v. Stanislaw, 65 A.3d 1242 (Me. 2013) (sentencing review, proportionality, and treatment of consecutive sentences)
State v. Stanislaw, 21 A.3d 91 (Me. 2011) (when basic sentence may be set near statutory maximum)
State v. Soucy, 890 A.2d 719 (Me. 2006) (upholding higher-end basic sentence on Class B unlawful sexual contact)
State v. Pozzuoli, 693 A.2d 745 (Me. 1997) (offensive-contact inquiry may include reasonable-person and victim's subjective perceptions)
Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1941) (due-process fairness standard applicable to trial errors)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentencing decisions)