131 A.3d 918
Me.2016Background
- Travis L. Lyon was indicted on three counts of unlawful sexual contact spanning three different date ranges; Count 1 (Class B) alleged offending "on or about between March 3, 2011 and March 3, 2012."
- The victim was born March 30, 2000 and thus turned 12 on March 30, 2012; the Class B charge required proof the victim was under 12.
- Trial evidence allowed the jury to find the Count 1 offense occurred any time before the victim’s 12th birthday, including between March 4 and March 29, 2012, and possibly as early as August 2010.
- A jury convicted Lyon on all three counts; he was sentenced to consecutive terms and timely appealed, challenging only the Count 1 conviction.
- Lyon’s claim: the trial proof varied from the indictment’s end date (March 3, 2012), exposing him to risk of double jeopardy for conduct after that date but before the victim’s 12th birthday (March 30, 2012).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether variance between indictment dates and trial proof exposed defendant to double jeopardy | State: indictment provided fair notice; time is not an element and variance is harmless if not prejudicial | Lyon: evidence allowed conviction for dates beyond indictment end-date, creating risk of future prosecution for same offense | Conviction affirmed; variance not fatal—indictment read with trial evidence protects against double jeopardy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. St. Pierre, 693 A.2d 1137 (Me. 1997) (time generally is not an element of unlawful sexual contact)
- State v. Standring, 960 A.2d 1210 (Me. 2008) (proof on any date within limitations suffices unless defendant prejudiced; date may matter for victim age or limitations)
- State v. Gifford, 595 A.2d 1049 (Me. 1991) (an indictment read together with evidence can protect against future jeopardy by making clear the offense’s temporal scope)
- State v. Cloutier, 695 A.2d 550 (Me. 1997) (variance in alleged dates not fatal where evidence expanded timeframe but did not prejudice defendant)
- State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (articulating standard for plain/obvious error review)