State of Maine v. Jason M. Foster, 2016 ME 154

Jason M. Foster was indicted on 18 counts alleging he impersonated a police officer to induce sex from four women; charges spanned multiple counts per victim and a broad date range (Oct 9, 2013–Oct 9, 2014).
Indictment grouped counts by victim but used duplicative language and did not specify exact dates or distinct incidents for each count.
Foster moved for a bill of particulars asserting vagueness and double jeopardy concerns, then withdrew the motion without prejudice and did not renew it before trial.
At trial Foster did not request unanimity instructions identifying specific incidents per count, nor seek clarifications to the verdict form; the agreed-upon verdict form nonetheless identified victims for each count.
The jury convicted Foster on 8 of 18 counts involving three victims; he was sentenced to an aggregate effective term and appealed, arguing due process and double jeopardy defects in the indictment and verdict form.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, concluding Foster waived the challenges by failing to pursue available procedural remedies and by acquiescing to trial processes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/ specificity of indictment	Indictment’s duplicative language and broad date range failed to give notice which specific incident supported each count	Foster argued inadequate notice prevented defense preparation and risked double jeopardy	Waived: Foster withdrew bill of particulars and did not renew; court declined to review sufficiency absent timely challenge
Jury unanimity requirement	Foster contended jury may not have unanimously agreed on same incident for each conviction	Foster sought reversal on due process grounds for lack of unanimity instruction	Waived: Foster did not request unanimity instruction at trial; appellate review declined
Verdict form specificity	Verdict form lacked incident-level detail tying counts to specific acts, risking ambiguity and double jeopardy	Foster argued verdict form failed to clarify which incident the jury relied on	Waived: Parties agreed to verdict form; jury answers and numbering showed which incidents were found proved, so convictions stand
Review for plain or obvious error despite waiver	Foster urged the court to review for due process/double jeopardy despite procedural default	Argued errors were structural/obvious and required reversal	Court declined: a party must pursue available process; strategic acquiescence precludes appellate review absent exceptional circumstances

State v. Flynn, 127 A.3d 1239 (Me. 2015) (standard for review of denial of bill of particulars)
State v. Clarke, 117 A.3d 1045 (Me. 2015) (challenge to indictment sufficiency waived if not raised in trial court)
State v. Shea, 588 A.2d 1195 (Me. 1991) (waiver by failing to move for bill of particulars or object pretrial)
State v. Bilynsky, 942 A.2d 1234 (Me. 2008) (defendant must use available procedures to cure indictment defects)
State v. Ford, 82 A.3d 75 (Me. 2013) (no appellate review where party strategically acquiesced to trial process)
Marshall v. Town of Dexter, 125 A.3d 1141 (Me. 2015) (party must pursue available process before asserting procedural inadequacy on appeal)