State of Maine v. Townsend Thorndike, 2025 ME 61

Townsend Thorndike was convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a minor and visual sexual aggression against a child related to events in 2021.
The prosecution sought to admit a recorded forensic interview of the child victim as evidence under 16 M.R.S. § 358, a statute newly enacted in 2023 to allow such evidence via a hearsay exception.
The trial court initially allowed the video, then reversed itself citing concerns about retroactive application to pending cases, then later allowed it again after a statutory amendment clarified retroactivity.
The Legislature, in April 2024, passed an emergency amendment to § 358 that expressly made it applicable to pending cases, following confusion and disparate judicial interpretations across the state.
Thorndike appealed, arguing that the emergency legislation was unconstitutional both as to the emergency enactment process and separation of powers, contending it targeted his case.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed and affirmed the conviction, upholding both the statutory amendment’s application and the trial court’s evidentiary ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Emergency Preamble	Legislature failed to state facts showing immediate necessity for public peace, health, or safety in the preamble as required by Maine Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 16	Preamble identified legal confusion and urgency to prevent harm and injustice, justifying emergency enactment	Court found preamble sufficient and emergency enactment proper
Retroactivity of Hearsay Exception (16 M.R.S. § 358)	Statute could not apply to pending cases without express language; emergency amendment ineffective until regular effective date	Statutory amendment validly clarified and applied retroactively by emergency law to pending cases	Amendment applied retroactively as intended from April 22, 2024
Legislative Authority to Prescribe Evidence Rules	Amendment was an impermissible legislative incursion into the judiciary’s rule-making power and intended to affect his (Thorndike’s) case specifically	Legislature has long-held power to prescribe evidentiary rules, provided they are constitutional and apply generally	Legislature can enact evidentiary statutes with general applicability; not a separation of powers violation
Special or Private Law Targeting a Specific Person	Amendment was a private/special law infringing on separation of powers and singling out Thorndike	Statute applies uniformly to all similar cases, not just Thorndike’s	Amendment is general, not a special law; no constitutional violation

Parker v. Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 314 A.3d 208 (Me. 2024) (presumption of constitutionality for legislative acts)
Morris v. Goss, 83 A.2d 556 (Me. 1951) (deference to legislative findings regarding emergency legislation)
Me. Milk Comm’n v. Cumberland Farms N., Inc., 205 A.2d 146 (Me. 1964) (statutes presumed constitutional; statements in a preamble are presumed true)
Ziehm v. Ziehm, 433 A.2d 725 (Me. 1981) (legislature may prescribe rules of evidence if constitutional)
State v. Shellhammer, 540 A.2d 780 (Me. 1988) (legislature has authority to create evidentiary rules with constitutional limits)
Irish v. Gimbel, 691 A.2d 664 (Me. 1997) (statutory exception to hearsay rule permissible)
State v. Pinkham, 383 A.2d 1355 (Me. 1978) (judicial authority over rules of evidence not absolute)