## Facts

- Lawrence Wilder was charged with three counts of Class D assault based on physical contact with his nine-year-old son during a week-long April 1998 school-vacation visit.
- The child was the only witness to the incidents at trial; Wilder did not deny the contacts but claimed parental-discipline justification under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 106(1).
- Incident 1: during a board game, Wilder grabbed the child’s shoulder and told him to “shut up,” causing pain.
- Incident 2: a similar shoulder squeeze occurred a few days later and reportedly left a bruise.
- Incident 3: during a conversation about a movie, Wilder covered the child’s mouth, told him to “shut up,” and squeezed his face, leaving finger and thumb bruises.
- After the visit, the child’s mother observed bruises on the shoulder and face and contacted law enforcement.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court convicted Wilder on all three assault counts; the Superior Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, applying Maine’s parental-control justification statute (17-A M.R.S.A. § 106(1)), the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilder’s use of force was not justified and therefore constituted criminal assault.
2. Whether additional claimed errors (hearsay admitted as a prior consistent statement, admission of a prior gross sexual assault conviction, and alleged sentencing disparity relative to a plea offer) required relief.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the convictions and remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal on all three counts.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilder’s force was outside § 106(1)’s protection.
- Because the case was resolved on sufficiency/justification grounds, the court did not reach the evidentiary and sentencing claims.

## Legal Principles

- Assault under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207(1) requires proof that a defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury or offensive physical contact.
- Under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 106(1), a parent may use a reasonable degree of physical force when and to the extent the parent reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or punish a child’s misconduct.
- The justification includes a subjective component (the parent’s actual belief in necessity) and an objective component: the force must not be grossly deviant from what a reasonable and prudent parent would believe necessary in the same situation.
- “Misconduct” for § 106(1) is not limited to extreme behavior; annoying or disrespectful conduct, including excessive talking or perceived exaggeration, may qualify for purposes of parental discipline.
- When a justification applies, the State must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so requires acquittal rather than a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that Wilder’s acts—shoulder squeezing and briefly covering/squeezing the child’s face causing minor bruising—fell within the range of discipline a reasonable parent might believe necessary and were not proven to be grossly deviant; the assault convictions were therefore vacated and judgments of acquittal ordered.


State v. Wilder, 748 A.2d 444 (Me. 2000)