State v. Patton, 2012 ME 101

Patton was convicted by a jury in Androscoggin County on four counts of gross sexual assault, one count of unlawful sexual contact, and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor; charges consolidated with a related Franklin County count.
The victim, born August 1993, testified to a sexual relationship with Patton beginning when she was around 12 and continuing into her mid-teens; she viewed Patton as a father figure.
Patton and the victim’s mother divorced in February 2009; Patton moved to an apartment in May 2009 and the victim visited regularly, with sexual activity occurring during visits.
Patton advertised and practiced hypnosis, claiming hypnotherapy skills; the victim and her mother testified about Patton’s use of hypnosis in the relationship.
During trial, a police officer testified that Patton said he needed to talk to his attorney when approached about the victim; the court admitted the testimony over objection.
The court sentenced Patton to six years for one gross sexual assault count, with another six-year term suspended and four years of probation; other counts were suspended and served concurrently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pre-arrest silence testimony and counsel invocation	Patton argues the officer’s testimony violated his Fifth/Sixth Amendment rights.	State concedes error but claims harmlessness.	Harmless error; cannot affect verdict.
Admission of hypnosis evidence	Patton contends hypnosis testimony was improper lay opinion and unfairly prejudicial.	State argues testimony was helpful and probative, not unduly prejudicial.	Admission proper; not unduly prejudicial.
Hearsay from officers about victim statements	Patton asserts officers’ testimony was hearsay and prejudicial.	State maintains no violation given relevance to charges.	Not obvious error; no substantial rights affected; not unfairly prejudicial.
Jury instruction on 17-A M.R.S. § 253(2)(H)	Patton claims omission of 'similar' in the statute language was reversible error.	State argues overall instructions were correct.	No obvious error; instructions viewed as a whole were adequate.

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (pre-arrest silence impeachment rule; not applicable here but cited for principle)
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prohibition on commenting on a defendant’s failure to testify)
Brewer v. Williams, 480 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1977) (silence discussion outside Miranda warnings; not directly barred here)
Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1982) (post-arrest silence cross-examination permissible in certain contexts)
State v. Pabon, 2011 ME 100 (Me. 2011) (tests for preservation and prejudicial error in Maine)
State v. Lipham, 2006 ME 137 (Me. 2006) (Rule 403 balancing for prejudicial evidence in Maine)