State of Maine v. Nicholas A. Gladu, 86 A.3d 1182

In 2010 police discovered a camera memory card with numerous photographs and videos of children; 35 photos depicted the four-year-old victim.
One contested photograph showed an adult finger touching the inner part of the victim’s labia; other images included an erect penis above partially pulled-down shorts identified as belonging to Gladu.
Gladu was indicted on 68 counts including Class A unlawful sexual contact (requiring penetration), sexual exploitation, visual sexual aggression, and multiple counts of possession of sexually explicit material; he pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
At trial the State conceded the labial-touch photograph was the only evidence offered to prove the penetration element of the Class A unlawful sexual contact charge.
The trial court denied Gladu’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, instructing the jury that even slight digital penetration would satisfy the element; the jury convicted on all counts.
Gladu also objected to the court’s edited voir dire question about juror attitudes toward a mental-illness defense; he argued his proposed, more specific question should have been asked. The court instructed generally and no juror disclosed bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the labial-touch photograph sufficed to prove the penetration element of Class A unlawful sexual contact	State: the photograph shows the fingertip entering the victim’s genitals (within labial folds or vagina), satisfying "penetration"	Gladu: the photo does not show penetration and thus cannot support a conviction requiring penetration	The court held that "penetration" means entry; viewed in State's favor, the photo could support a rational finding that the fingertip entered the genitals, so acquittal was properly denied
Whether the trial court abused discretion in voir dire by not asking Gladu’s detailed question about jurors or close family members treated for mental illness	State: the court’s general question adequately probed bias about mental-illness defenses without demanding intensely personal disclosures	Gladu: the specific question was necessary to uncover possible bias arising from jurors’ or family members’ mental-illness experiences	The court did not abuse its discretion; the general question was sufficient to detect bias and allowed follow-up individual voir dire if needed

State v. Ormsby, 81 A.3d 336 (statutory-construction and evidence standard cited for viewing facts in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Severy, 8 A.3d 715 (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
Fortin v. Titcomb, 60 A.3d 765 (plain-meaning rule for undefined statutory terms)
State v. Nigro, 24 A.3d 1283 (standard for reviewing trial court management of voir dire)