Background
William Bradbury was charged with offenses involving two teenage sisters who lived near him. The evidence showed that Bradbury exposed himself and masturbated in their presence near a river and showed them sexually explicit images and videos of himself. At a family barbecue, the younger sister, then thirteen or fourteen, fell asleep at Bradbury’s home. She awoke as Bradbury pulled down her shirt, put his mouth on her breast, and then stood nearby masturbating.
After a jury trial, Bradbury was convicted of unlawfully sexually touching the younger sister and of two merged counts of indecent conduct; the jury did not reach a verdict on a separate unlawful-sexual-touching charge involving the older sister, which the State dismissed. Shortly before trial, the State disclosed a 3,200-page report containing images recovered from Bradbury’s phone. The State voluntarily elected not to use the images in its case-in-chief because of the late disclosure but proposed using them to impeach Bradbury if he testified. The trial court allowed that limited use, after which Bradbury chose not to testify.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the unlawful-sexual-touching conviction. The jury could rationally find that the younger sister did not expressly or impliedly acquiesce because she was asleep and then only half awake when Bradbury touched her breast. Her failure to object or resist did not establish acquiescence. The circumstances—including her age, the setting, and Bradbury’s earlier sexual conduct in the sisters’ presence—also permitted a finding that Bradbury was criminally negligent as to her lack of acquiescence.
The court further held that the State committed a clear discovery violation by failing to disclose the phone evidence within Rule 16’s deadlines. Nevertheless, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to use the images solely for impeachment. That limitation fairly addressed the late disclosure while preventing Bradbury from using the violation to shield potentially conflicting testimony from impeachment. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment but remanded for correction of the judgment form and docket entries to reflect one conviction and sentence on merged Counts 3 and 5 and one on merged Counts 4 and 6.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s lack of objection or physical resistance does not necessarily amount to express or implied acquiescence to sexual touching; the surrounding circumstances matter.
- Evidence that a sleeping or half-awake minor never indicated agreement supported findings of both lack of acquiescence and the defendant’s criminal negligence regarding that lack of acquiescence.
- Although the State clearly violated its discovery obligations, limiting the late-disclosed evidence to impeachment was a permissible case-specific sanction; different circumstances could require a different result.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the proof required under Maine’s former unlawful-sexual-touching statute, which used “acquiesced” rather than the current statutory language concerning consent. It confirms that silence, nonresistance, or incapacity while asleep cannot be treated in isolation from the context of the encounter.
The opinion also warns prosecutors that automatically discoverable material held by law enforcement is within the State’s discovery obligations. Chief Justice Stanfill separately expressed alarm at the frequency of such violations and emphasized that the State must improve its compliance, even though the violation in this case did not warrant reversal.