State v. Mosher
58 A.3d 1070
Me.2012Background
- Mosher was convicted of domestic violence assault (Class D) and sentenced to 180 days in jail with all but 60 days suspended, plus two years of probation with a certified batterers’ intervention program (CBI).
- Mosher challenged only the sentence on equal protection grounds, arguing women could not receive a two-year probation term with CBI.
- The court conducted a de novo review of the sentence legality, noting no factual record yet on availability of female-oriented CBI programs.
- Statutes allow up to one year of probation for Class D offenses, but permit a two-year term only if the defendant completes a CBI program, with no gender distinction on the statute itself.
- Regulations define CBI programs as male-focused, restricting certified programs to men, raising potential gender-based implementation concerns.
- Because no factual record established whether women had access to, or availability of, CBI programs at the time, the court remanded for development of those facts and further constitutional analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the regulatory scheme giving two-year probation with CBI to men violate equal protection? | Mosher argues gender-based scheme creates unequal punishment. | Mosher contends the law itself does not distinguish by gender; record insufficient on women’s access. | Remanded; need factual development and analysis. |
| Are CBI programs lawfully available to women under current regulations? | Record suggests rules authorize only male CBI programs. | Regulations may be temporary/undocumented; not enough record to decide. | Remanded to develop availability facts. |
| Can a gender-based regulatory implementation be substantially related to important governmental objectives? | Single-sex CBI programs for men only cannot justify two-year probation disparity. | Unknown facts about women's programs; cannot assess substantial relation. | Remanded for factual development and analysis. |
| Should Mosher's sentence be vacated and remanded given the potential equal protection issue? | Sentence may be unconstitutional if gender-based disparity is present. | Record inadequate to resolve constitutional issue. | Sentence vacated; remanded for development of facts and resentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications)
- Houston, 534 A.2d 1293 (Me. 1987) (gender-based sentencing discrimination analysis)
- Godbout v. WLB Holding, Inc., 2010 ME 46 (Me. 2010) (presumption of constitutionality and burden on challenger)
- Bates v. Dep’t of Behavioral & Developmental Servs., 2004 ME 154 (Me. 2004) (interpretation of statutory provisions with constitutional considerations)
- Hannum v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2003 ME 123 (Me. 2003) (procedural caution in constitutional challenges)
- Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2010 ME 18 (Me. 2010) (state equal protection context and regulatory schemes)
- Driscoll v. Mains, 2005 ME 52 (Me. 2005) (statutory interpretation and constitutional considerations)