The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Daniel Cardona's conviction for unlawful sexual contact, rejecting his challenge to key evidentiary rulings that he argued undermined his defense. The unanimous decision, issued Dec. 18, 2025, upheld the Cumberland County trial court's handling of complex testimony issues in the sexual assault case.
Cardona was convicted of Class B unlawful sexual contact under 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(F) after a jury trial before Judge Cashman. The conviction stemmed from an incident in October 2020 when Cardona, then in his fifties, sexually assaulted his 12-year-old great-niece during a sleepover at his home.
According to the court's recitation of facts, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the victim awoke one morning to find Cardona inserting his finger into her vagina. The assault came to light nearly a year later in October 2021, when the victim disclosed the incident to her mother following a family phone call encouraging her to come forward if she had experienced sexual assault.
The timing of the disclosure was significant to the case's procedural history. The victim's family had grown concerned about potential sexual assault after Cardona accused the victim's cousin of sexually assaulting the victim. This accusation prompted the family conversation that ultimately led to the victim's disclosure about Cardona's conduct.
On appeal, Cardona raised two primary evidentiary challenges that formed the crux of his appellate strategy. First, he contested the trial court's decision to admit testimony regarding his subsequent sexual behavior directed toward the victim. This type of evidence, often referred to as "other acts" evidence, can be particularly prejudicial and is subject to careful judicial scrutiny under Maine's evidence rules.
Second, Cardona challenged the trial court's exclusion of testimony about threats he allegedly made toward the victim's cousin. The defense had sought to introduce this evidence to support a theory that the victim had a motive to fabricate the sexual assault allegations against Cardona. Such motive evidence can be crucial in sexual assault cases where the prosecution's case relies heavily on the victim's testimony.
The defense theory appears to have centered on the idea that the victim's disclosure was motivated by anger or revenge related to Cardona's accusations against her cousin, rather than being a truthful account of sexual assault. This type of fabrication defense is common in sexual assault cases but requires courts to carefully balance the probative value of the evidence against potential prejudice and confusion of issues.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision to affirm both evidentiary rulings suggests the trial court properly applied Maine's evidence rules in weighing these competing considerations. The court's opinion, written by Justice Connors, indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making these evidentiary determinations.
The panel that decided the case included Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Mead, Connors, Lawrence, and Douglas. The case was argued before the court on Sept. 9, 2025, with the decision following more than three months later.
The conviction carries significant legal consequences for Cardona. Class B unlawful sexual contact is a serious felony under Maine law, reflecting the state's approach to protecting minors from sexual exploitation by adults in positions of trust or authority. The fact that Cardona was the victim's great-uncle likely influenced both the charging decision and the court's analysis of the evidence.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in prosecuting sexual assault cases involving family members, where complex relationship dynamics can create both opportunities for abuse and complications in the legal proceedings that follow. The delayed disclosure pattern seen in this case—nearly a year between the incident and the victim's report—is common in cases involving child victims and family perpetrators.
The appellate court's affirmance of the conviction means Cardona's legal challenges have been exhausted at the state level, though he could potentially seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, such petitions are rarely granted, particularly in state criminal cases that don't raise significant federal constitutional issues.
The decision also provides guidance for future cases involving similar evidentiary disputes. The court's treatment of subsequent conduct evidence and fabrication motive theories will likely influence how trial courts handle comparable issues in sexual assault prosecutions.
For the victim and her family, the appellate court's decision provides finality to the legal proceedings and validation of the trial court's guilty verdict. The case demonstrates Maine's commitment to holding accountable those who sexually exploit children, even when the perpetrators are family members.