State of Maine v. Daniel Cardona

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2025 ME 97
Docket: Cum-24-530
Argued: September 9, 2025
Decided: December 18, 2025

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.

STATE OF MAINE

v.

DANIEL CARDONA

CONNORS, J.

[¶1] Daniel Cardona appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful

sexual contact (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(F) (2025), entered by the trial

court (Cumberland County, Cashman, J.) after a jury trial. On appeal, Cardona

challenges (A) the admission of testimony regarding his subsequent sexual

behavior directed toward the victim and (B) the exclusion of testimony

regarding threats that Cardona made toward the victim’s cousin, which

Cardona sought to introduce as evidence of the victim’s motive to fabricate the

allegations. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] “Viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable

to the State, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a
2

reasonable doubt.” State v. Athayde, 2022 ME 41, ¶ 2, 277 A.3d 387.

[¶3] Cardona is the victim’s great-uncle. One night in October 2020, the

victim slept over at Cardona’s house. The victim awoke the next morning to

Cardona inserting his finger into her vagina. At that time, the victim was twelve

years old and Cardona was in his fifties.

[¶4] On October 19, 2021, the victim disclosed Cardona’s sexual assault

to her mother. The victim did so after a phone call in which the victim’s family

encouraged her to come forward if she had been sexually assaulted. The family

was concerned that the victim had been sexually assaulted because Cardona

had accused the victim’s cousin of sexually assaulting the victim.1

[¶5] That same day, the victim and her mother reported the offense to a

police officer. One week later, on October 26, 2021, the victim disclosed the

offense to a forensic interviewer in a recorded interview at the Child Advocacy

Center (CAC).

[¶6] On June 8, 2022, the State charged Cardona by indictment with

unlawful sexual contact (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(F). A jury trial

occurred over four days in July 2024.

1 The victim denied that her cousin had assaulted her.
3

A. Admission of Late-Disclosed Evidence

[¶7] On the first day of trial, the State presented a new witness list that

included, for the first time, the victim’s brother’s ex-girlfriend, H.F. Cardona

had named H.F. on his witness list but had not intended to call her at trial. Three

days before trial began, however, the victim told the State for the first time of a

separate incident that occurred after the sexual contact for which Cardona had

been indicted. The victim and H.F. were sitting in the back seat of Cardona’s

vehicle when Cardona placed a sex toy on the back seat and offered it to the

victim and H.F. to use.

[¶8] The State sought to admit evidence of the sex-toy incident to prove

Cardona’s intent and lack of mistake. Cardona, although acknowledging that

the evidence was “somewhat relevant,” objected to its admission, arguing that

the admission of the evidence after the disclosure of it on the eve of trial would

be unduly prejudicial and that the evidence should therefore be excluded under

M.R. Evid. 403. Cardona also requested a continuance to interview and run a

background check on H.F.

[¶9] The court excluded evidence of the sex-toy incident under M.R. Evid.

403, on the basis of “unfair surprise.” The court also suggested that it was

balancing the relevance of the sex-toy evidence against the risk that the jury
4

would consider it as propensity evidence. The court qualified this ruling,

however, by stating that its ruling could change as the trial progressed.

Specifically, when ruling on the objection, the court stated:

I’m reserving the right, though, that if the issue is generated, the
State can reapproach on it . . . . I’m going to say that the State can’t
use it unless they seek based on something that was opened. I think
there are a lot of issues that could get generated during this trial,
so I’m reserving the right to reconsider. But for now, I’m saying
that it’s not going to come in.

[¶10] The State subsequently asked whether evidence as to Cardona’s

“alleged concern for this victim’s chastity” would open the door to the evidence

of the sex-toy incident, to which the court replied that it would.

[¶11] As the trial proceeded, the State made several requests to bring in

evidence of the sex-toy incident. On the first day of trial, the victim testified

that Cardona would tell her that he saw “petite” girls who reminded him of her.

In the CAC interview three years prior, however, the victim had not mentioned

these comments when the CAC interviewer had asked the victim if anything else

happened in the Cardona home to make her feel uncomfortable. On

cross-examination, Cardona asked the victim about this discrepancy and the

State objected. At sidebar, the State argued that if defense counsel continued

this line of questioning, the State should be permitted to ask the victim about

the sex-toy incident. The court responded:
5

I mean, this might open up a bunch of things. This is what I was
talking about. If you open up the can of worms, you might get
answers you’re not expecting.

Defense counsel asked whether his questioning had opened the door and the

court responded:

I’m not saying that’s happened yet. I’m just saying to ask a child
those kind of questions just — you don’t know what she might say,
things that made her uncomfortable. But I am going to overrule the
objection.

[¶12] During the second day of trial, Cardona sought to introduce

evidence of his limited criminal record, which defense counsel had pointed out

in opening argument, without objection from the State, to argue that Cardona

had no history of sexual offenses. After the State asserted that such evidence

would open the door to the sex-toy evidence, Cardona withdrew the question,

and the court instructed the jury to disregard the question.

[¶13] Later that day, the State again asked to call H.F. as a witness. The

State argued that Cardona had attacked the victim’s credibility and that H.F.

could corroborate several of the victim’s statements regarding her relationship

with Cardona. Defense counsel objected and stated, “I thought this matter was

settled previously and she would not be called as a witness,” to which the court

clarified that it never said that. Ultimately, the court ruled that it would allow

the State to call H.F. to corroborate the victim’s statements but not to testify as
6

to the sex-toy incident.

[¶14] Also on the second day of trial, Cardona introduced in evidence a

video recording of the victim’s interview with a police officer. Cardona had

previously indicated intent to play “snippets” of the video. At trial, the State

requested that the entire video be played to the jury pursuant to M.R. Evid.

106,2 but indicated that it could discuss cutting specific, irrelevant information

from the video. Defense counsel indicated that he was fine with the entire video

being admitted, and the entire video was played to the jury.

[¶15] In this recorded interview, the victim’s mother stated that there

was a two-year-old ward of the state who was being fostered in the Cardona

home, and she and the officer discussed reporting the alleged offense to the

Department of Health and Human Services. After the video finished playing,

the court instructed the jury that it could not consider the statements of the

officer and the victim’s mother as evidence of any factual assertions made by

the officer or the victim’s mother, but only as part of the jury’s overall analysis

2 Maine Rule of Evidence 106 provides that “[i]f a party utilizes in court all or part of a writing or

recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—
or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the time.”
M.R. Evid. 106.
7

of the interview of the victim and in evaluating the victim’s disclosure and in

making credibility determinations.

[¶16] Cardona then called the victim’s mother as a witness. After

establishing that the victim and her mother frequently visited Cardona’s home,

defense counsel asked the following questions:

[Defense counsel:] [H]ow many children would typically stay there
that you would witness when you were picking up [the victim] or
dropping [the victim] off?

[Victim’s mother:] On a regular basis, between six or seven, if not
a few other friends of the children that go over.

[Defense counsel:] I think on the video you brought up a — there
was a foster child in the home at some point in time?

[Victim’s mother:] Yes.

[Defense counsel:] And that was a DHHS pla[ce]ment —
placement, if you know?

[Victim’s mother:] Yes.

[Defense counsel:] The — did you think that the Cardona home was
a safe place for your children to be at?

[Victim’s mother:] At that time, most certainly, I did.

[Defense counsel:] The — I think I remember you using — saying
that you thought it was very, very safe there?

[Victim’s mother:] Yeah, at that time, I did.
8

[¶17] At the beginning of the third day of trial, the State renewed its

motion to bring in evidence regarding the sex-toy incident. The State argued

that Cardona opened the door to the sex-toy evidence by improperly eliciting

testimony that the Department had placed a child in the Cardona home,

suggesting that the Department had found the home to be safe. The State

further argued that Cardona elicited testimony about how safe the Cardona

home was, and that Cardona improperly introduced evidence of his lack of a

criminal record.

[¶18] In response, Cardona argued again that introduction of this

evidence would be an unfair surprise. Cardona also requested a continuance to

obtain a “background check on [H.F.] and to try to interview her and — and

what have you.” The State in response noted that H.F. had been on Cardona’s

witness list and that the defense had been provided with a complete criminal

record for H.F.

[¶19] In ruling, the court noted that although it had previously limited

the State from admitting the evidence regarding the sex-toy incident, the

evidence had been shared with the defense before trial as soon as the State was

aware of it and, relevantly, went to sexual behavior by the defendant toward

the victim. The court then ruled that the evidence regarding the incident would
9

be allowed, given that H.F. had always been on Cardona’s witness list, given all

that progressed in the trial proceedings, and given that the State’s argument

had “suggested . . . a circumstance which the State now ha[d] to be given the

opportunity to rebut.” The court denied Cardona’s request for a continuance.

[¶20] Cardona then argued that a recorded phone call between the

victim’s mother and him, regarding which the State intended to cross-examine

the victim’s mother, should be played in full for the jury. The State objected to

the playback of the portions of this call that related to the foster child at the

Cardona home but noted that the State’s argument on this point “is somewhat

weakened by Your Honor’s agreement to let [H.F.] testify.” The court stated

that such evidence would be inadmissible, but that “since it ha[d] already

seeped in,” the court would allow the entire call to be played.

[¶21] Both the victim and H.F. testified that Cardona offered them a sex

toy while they sat in the back of his vehicle.

B. Exclusion of Evidence of Defendant’s Threats Toward Cousin

[¶22] Cardona’s theory of the case was that the victim fabricated an

accusation to “turn the tables” on him because he had accused the victim’s
10

cousin of having sexual contact with the victim. Cardona’s accusations toward

the cousin were in evidence.

[¶23] In addition to the evidence of his accusations, Cardona sought to

question the cousin about instances in which Cardona threatened to hurt the

cousin if the cousin sexually assaulted the victim. The State objected to the line

of questioning, and following discussion at sidebar, the court allowed Cardona

to conduct a voir dire of the cousin. During the voir dire, the cousin testified

that he had directly or indirectly received several threats from Cardona but that

he never told the victim about Cardona’s accusations. After the voir dire, the

court noted that much of the cousin’s testimony was hearsay and stated that it

was not relevant because “it’s not in any way pertaining to [the victim’s]

allegations. There’s zero nexus between any motivation [the cousin] might

have . . . and . . . the complaining witness’[s] statement.”

[¶24] After this voir dire, evidence was introduced that the victim was

aware of Cardona’s allegations against the cousin, but the introduced evidence

did not indicate that the victim knew that Cardona had threatened the cousin.

C. Verdict and Sentencing

[¶25] The jury returned a guilty verdict and the court sentenced Cardona

to eight years of incarceration, with all but five years suspended, and four years
11

of probation. Cardona timely appealed. See M.R. App. P. 2B(b)(1); 15 M.R.S.

§ 2115 (2025).

II. DISCUSSION

A. The court acted within its discretion in admitting the evidence of
Cardona’s subsequent sexual behavior toward the victim.

[¶26] Cardona argues that the court erred in admitting the evidence that

he had offered the victim a sex toy because he had not “opened the door” to

such evidence.

[¶27] The sex-toy evidence was relevant from the inception of the

proceedings to show “the relationship between the parties or the intent of the

defendant.” See State v. DeLong, 505 A.2d 803, 805 (Me. 1986). A court has

broad discretion whether to exclude relevant evidence as unfairly prejudicial

under M.R. Evid. 403, and it would have been well within the court’s discretion

to admit that evidence initially. See State v. Kimball, 2016 ME 75, ¶ 16, 139 A.3d

914 (holding that “pursuant to M.R. Evid. 403, the trial court has broad

discretion to weigh the relevance of evidence against the danger of unfair

prejudice to the defendant” (alterations and quotation marks omitted)).

[¶28] In this instance, the court made clear that its initial ruling was not

conclusive. This was a prudent decision, as we have cautioned trial courts to

refrain from making Rule 403 determinations prior to trial. State v. Patterson,
12

651 A.2d 362, 367 (Me. 1994). Both initially and during trial, the court

repeatedly stated that its decision was not final. Hence, Cardona could not

reasonably rely on the initial ruling.3

[¶29] The record in this case further underscores a lack of prejudice from

the court’s revisitation of its ruling on admissibility. H.F. was on Cardona’s

witness list; Cardona did not provide any specifics as to a need for a

continuance once the court revisited its ruling, other than to obtain a

background check (which the State had already provided) and “to try to

interview her”; and Cardona has not argued on appeal that the court’s rejection

of the continuance was an abuse of the court’s discretion. See State v. Hunt,

3 In Patterson, we entertained an interlocutory appeal by the State challenging the exclusion of

evidence under Rule 403 in a ruling on a motion in limine shortly before trial. Patterson, 651 A.2d at
364-366. In deciding to entertain the appeal, we stated:

Patterson could have also argued that the State’s appeal from the order granting
his motion in limine is premature because the court might have exercised its
discretion in favor of the State during the trial. See State v. Pinkham, 586 A.2d 730,
731 (Me. 1991) (ruling on motion in limine does not become final until the evidence
is offered at trial). Although we would normally hesitate to entertain an appeal from
an order granting a motion in limine for this very reason, see id., the Superior Court
justice who granted the motion in the instant case was to preside at Patterson’s trial
the following week and clearly stated his intention to exclude the contested
statements. Not only did the justice state that he was “not going to let them in,” he
also told defense counsel that he “could go to the bank with that.” Under these
circumstances, we find that the State’s appeal is not premature. See State v.
Shellhammer, 540 A.2d 780, 782 n.1 (Me. 1988) (appeal from denial of State’s motion
in limine was not premature because “the record clearly indicates a commitment by
the District Court to stand by its ruling at the trial”).

Id. at 366. We also note that a ruling on a motion in limine does not preserve a Rule 403 objection
unless the ruling on the motion is “unequivocally final.” State v. Hassan, 2013 ME 98, ¶ 40 n.7, 82
A.3d 86.
13

2023 ME 26, ¶ 16, 293 A.3d 423 (reviewing court’s denial of a motion to

continue for abuse of discretion).

[¶30] Hence, whether or not a specific moment in the trial “opened the

door” to the evidence is immaterial to our review on appeal.4 The question on

appeal is simply whether the court’s subsequent Rule 403 ruling fell within its

broad discretion in balancing relevance against unfair prejudice. Given that the

evidence could have been admitted from the inception of the trial and that

nothing presented prior to the court’s re-visitation undermined such a

determination, there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to admit

the evidence.

B. The court did not err in excluding as irrelevant evidence of
Cardona’s threats toward the cousin.

[¶31] Cardona argues that the court erred in excluding evidence that

Cardona had threatened the victim’s cousin, basing his challenge on the

4 This is not to suggest that the court could have revisited its Rule 403 ruling for any reason.

Certainly, the court could not have decided to admit the sex-toy evidence based on, for example, bias
against Cardona, or for any arbitrary reason. See Aranovitch v. Versel, 2015 ME 146, ¶ 13, 127 A.3d
542 (“[A] trial court has exceeded the bounds of its discretion when, in discretionary
decision-making, the court . . . considers a factor prohibited by law. . . .” (quotation marks omitted)).
But the court’s reasoning here was not arbitrary or otherwise impermissible.

To the contrary, the evidence presented as the trial progressed supported the court’s revisitation.
And the issue was whether Cardona would be unfairly prejudiced by the introduction of the sex-toy
evidence, regardless of whether he had opened the door. After eliciting from the victim’s mother her
former belief that Cardona’s home was safe, Cardona cannot complain that the court considered such
evidence in conducting a Rule 403 analysis. See State v. Deering, 611 A.2d 972, 973 (Me. 1992) (“A
defendant may not later complain about the effect of evidence he has introduced”).
14

grounds that the evidence was both relevant and not offered for the truth of the

matter asserted. Evidence of the threats was relevant, Cardona argues, because

it tended to show that the victim, or the victim’s family, fomented the

allegations against Cardona in response to the threats.

[¶32] The court excluded the threat evidence as irrelevant, reasoning

that there was “zero nexus between any motivation [the cousin] might have . . .

and the . . . [victim’s] statement.” “[W]e review a trial court’s determination of

relevance for clear error and its ultimate ruling on admissibility for an abuse of

discretion.” State v. Pratt, 2020 ME 141, ¶ 11, 243 A.3d 469. Where, as here,

“the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be

introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist.” M.R. Evid.

104(b).

[¶33] Here, the relevance of the threat evidence was contingent on one

of two facts—either that the victim knew of the threats or that the victim’s

family (who knew of the threats) conspired with the victim to accuse Cardona.

Beginning with the first scenario, there was no evidence that the victim knew

of Cardona’s threats; indeed, the cousin testified in his voir dire that he never

discussed Cardona’s allegations with the victim. As to the second scenario,

there was no evidence that the victim and the victim’s family collectively
15

fabricated the allegation against Cardona. To the contrary, the evidence at trial

indicated that the victim’s family encouraged her to report any sexual assault,

no matter who the perpetrator was, and that the victim then disclosed that

Cardona had sexual contact with her. We accordingly perceive no error in the

court’s determination that the threat evidence was not relevant.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Rory A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law LLC, York, for appellant Daniel
Cardona

Christopher J. Coleman, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Office of the District Attorney,
Portland, for appellee State of Maine

Cumberland County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2022-2229
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY