State v. Severy, 2010 ME 126

In 2008–2009, a seven- or eight-year-old girl regularly visited Severy in Randolph, Maine, where he lived alone and was about 63 years old.
The child would climb onto Severy’s lap and engage in repeated touching of his penis, with Severy not directing her to stop and sometimes expressing pleasure.
The acts occurred on multiple visits, with the child unbuckling belts, unbuttoning pants, and touching his genitals; Severy did not initiate the sexual contact.
In spring 2009 Severy finally told the child to stop; the child later disclosed the acts to her mother and doctor.
A Maine State Police detective interviewed Severy, who admitted the child touched his penis and that he allowed it because it felt good, but denied prompting or touching the child himself.
Severy was indicted for unlawful sexual contact, charged as a Class B crime under 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(E-1); the jury convicted him after trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 'subject' requires initiation of sexual contact by the actor	Severy argues he did not subject the child because he did not initiate contact.	Severy contends the statute requires intentional initiation of contact by the actor.	Subject possible by allowing contact to continue.
Is there sufficient evidence that Severy intentionally subjected the child to sexual contact	The State contends the evidence shows Severy's intent by allowing contact and expressions of pleasure.	Severy argues the State failed to prove he intentionally subjected the child.	Yes; evidence supports intentional arousal/participation by allowing contact.
Did the trial court err in defining 'subject' for the jury	The State relies on a broad understanding of 'subject' as causing or allowing experience.	Severy argues the definition was improper or incomplete.	The defined meaning to 'cause to experience' aligns with statutory interpretation.

State v. Filler, 2010 ME 90 (Me. 2010) (sufficiency review; rational juror could convict)
State v. Christen, 2009 ME 78 (Me. 2009) (statutory interpretation; de novo review)
State v. Elliott, 2010 ME 3 (Me. 2010) (statutory construction; harmonious interpretation)