The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed three domestic violence convictions against Heather M. Hodgson while ordering resentencing after finding the trial court failed to impose required mandatory minimum prison terms.
In a decision issued Aug. 29, the court upheld Hodgson's convictions for domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, and endangering the welfare of a child following a nonjury trial in Kennebec County Superior Court.
Justice Douglas, writing for the six-member panel, rejected Hodgson's challenge that insufficient evidence supported her convictions. However, the court concluded that the trial court's sentence violated Maine law by failing to impose the mandatory minimum one-year imprisonment term required for domestic violence offenses involving dangerous weapons.
The case stems from a Feb. 6, 2023 incident involving Hodgson and her then-husband. According to court records, the State alleged that Hodgson purposely discharged a firearm as a "warning shot" following an argument about alcohol between the couple.
Initially charged by complaint with domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, Hodgson faced an expanded indictment in April 2023. A Kennebec County grand jury indicted her on six charges, including attempted elevated aggravated assault, attempted aggravated assault, domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, endangering the welfare of a child, and reckless conduct with a firearm.
The State dismissed the most serious charge of attempted elevated aggravated assault before trial. Following the nonjury proceeding before Superior Court Justice William Stokes, Hodgson was convicted on three of the remaining charges.
Under Maine law, domestic violence offenses involving dangerous weapons carry enhanced penalties, including mandatory minimum prison sentences. Specifically, 17-A M.R.S. § 1604(3)(C) requires a minimum one-year term of imprisonment for domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.
The State filed a Rule 35 motion seeking to correct Hodgson's sentence to reflect the mandatory minimum requirement. When the trial court denied this motion, the State appealed under 15 M.R.S. § 2115-A(2-B) and Maine Rule of Unified Criminal Procedure 35(g).
Meanwhile, Hodgson filed her own appeal challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting her convictions. She argued that the State failed to prove the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected Hodgson's sufficiency challenge, finding adequate evidence to support each conviction. The court's analysis examined whether the State proved that Hodgson engaged in reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon in a domestic violence context, criminally threatened someone with a dangerous weapon in a domestic relationship, and endangered a child's welfare.
However, the court agreed with the State regarding the sentencing error. Justice Douglas wrote that the trial court's sentence "does not reflect the mandatory minimum one-year term of imprisonment for domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon" as required by state statute.
Mandatory minimum sentences for domestic violence cases involving weapons reflect legislative intent to impose enhanced penalties recognizing the heightened danger these offenses present to victims and families. The requirements apply regardless of other sentencing considerations that might typically allow for lesser punishment.
The court's ruling demonstrates the strict application of mandatory minimums in domestic violence cases. Trial courts have limited discretion when statutory mandatory minimums apply, and appellate courts will enforce these requirements even when it means vacating otherwise appropriate sentences.
This consolidated appeal involved both the defendant challenging her convictions and the State challenging the adequacy of her sentence - an unusual procedural posture that allowed the Supreme Judicial Court to address both the substantive criminal law issues and the sentencing requirements in a single decision.
The case also illustrates how domestic violence prosecutions can evolve from initial charges to more complex indictments as investigations develop. Hodgson faced significantly more serious charges in the indictment than in the original complaint, though the State ultimately dismissed the most severe allegation.
The Supreme Judicial Court's decision affirmed the convictions while vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing. This means Hodgson's guilt on the three charges stands, but she must return to Superior Court for a new sentencing hearing that complies with mandatory minimum requirements.
On resentencing, the trial court must impose at least the one-year mandatory minimum for the domestic violence reckless conduct charge, though it retains discretion regarding sentences for the other convictions within statutory limits.
The decision reflects ongoing judicial attention to domestic violence cases involving weapons, where enhanced penalties recognize both the immediate danger to victims and the broader public safety concerns these offenses raise.