FirstAlerts

Former WiHi Teacher Charged with Sexual Abuse of a Minor

Chance Michael Hogue faces multiple counts of sexual abuse and related offenses involving a student; the case remains undecided.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 28, 2026, 4:54 p.m. ETWritten Aug 28, 2026, 5:34 p.m. ET
Chance Michael Hogue, a former teacher at Wicomico High School (WiHi), has been with multiple counts of sexual abuse and related offenses, according to WGMD. The charges include two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Minor, two counts of Attempted Sexual Abuse of a Minor, two counts of Sexual Solicitation of a Minor, two counts of Sexual Offense in the Fourth Degree, and two counts of Attempted Sexual Offense in the Fourth Degree. The government alleges that Hogue sexually abused and exploited the victim during the time he was employed as a teacher at WiHi and the victim was a student, WGMD reported. The case is being investigated by the Wicomico County Child Advocacy Center. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved. Hogue has been but not tried; charges are allegations and he is presumed innocent. The date of the alleged conduct has not been established.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 128 Aug 2026, 21:34current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble β€” all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.