State v. Foster, 149 A.3d 542

Foster was indicted on 18 counts arising from allegations he impersonated a police officer to coerce four women into sex during a one-year date range.
The indictment grouped multiple counts per victim but used a broad date range and duplicative language; victims were identified by initials and counts were numerically organized by victim.
Foster moved for a bill of particulars challenging vagueness and double jeopardy concerns but withdrew that motion before trial and did not renew it.
At trial Foster did not request unanimity instructions tying juror agreement to specific incidents, nor did he seek a more specific verdict form; the parties used an agreed-upon verdict form that named victims for each count.
The jury convicted Foster on eight counts involving three victims and acquitted him on ten counts; the court imposed concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling an effective prison term and probation.
On appeal Foster argued the indictment and verdict form failed to give adequate notice and risked double jeopardy; the court affirmed the convictions, finding the challenges waived and the record adequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/ specificity of indictment (notice)	Indictment's duplicative language and broad date range failed to give fair notice of which incident supported each charge	State: indictment's organization and verdict form sufficiently identified victims and incidents; defendant waived challenge	Waived — Foster withdrew bill of particulars and did not renew; appellate review declined
Double jeopardy risk from non‑specific counts	Non‑specific counts could expose Foster to being retried for the same incident	State: record and verdict form tie counts to specific incidents; jury decided which incidents were proven	Waived — failure to pursue available procedural remedies at trial; appellate relief denied
Unanimity requirement and verdict specificity	Jury may not have unanimously agreed on the same incident for each count	Foster did not request unanimity instruction or a clarified verdict form	Waived — no requested instruction or form clarification; court declines to disturb verdict
Sufficiency of the evidence	Foster implied due process concerns but did not contest evidence sufficiency on appeal	State: ample evidence supported each conviction	Not contested on appeal; court notes evidence was sufficient

State v. Flynn, 127 A.3d 1239 (Me. 2015) (review standard for bill of particulars denial)
State v. Clarke, 117 A.3d 1045 (Me. 2015) (failure to challenge indictment or seek bill of particulars waives sufficiency claim)
State v. Shea, 588 A.2d 1195 (Me. 1991) (defendant waived indictment challenge by not moving for a bill of particulars)
State v. Bilynsky, 942 A.2d 1234 (Me. 2008) (procedural relief must be sought in trial court before appellate complaint)
State v. Ford, 82 A.3d 75 (Me. 2013) (court will not review for obvious error when party acquiesced to trial process)
Marshall v. Town of Dexter, 125 A.3d 1141 (Me. 2015) (party must pursue available process before alleging procedural inadequacy)
State v. Poulin, 144 A.3d 574 (Me. 2016) (sufficiency of evidence standard; evidence here was ample)