Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A Greek and Australian citizen and a U.S. citizen, who married in Australia, had a child together and lived in Australia before relocating to Greece. In late 2022, the family traveled to Maine for a planned vacation. On the day before their scheduled return to Greece, the mother informed the father that she and the child would not return with him. The father returned to Greece alone, while the mother and child remained in Maine, where the child began receiving developmental services and became integrated into the local community. The child was later diagnosed with autism and enrolled in a therapeutic program. The mother filed for divorce in Maine, and the father subsequently sought the child’s return to Greece under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.The Maine District Court found that the mother wrongfully retained the child in Maine as of January 4, 2023, but that the father did not file a petition for the child’s return in a Maine court until April 19, 2024—more than one year later. The court also found that the child was well settled in Maine, with significant family support, stable living arrangements, and access to specialized services. Exercising its discretion, the court denied the father’s petition to return the child to Greece. The father appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court determined that the order was reviewable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. The court held that the District Court did not err in finding the date of wrongful retention, nor in concluding that the father’s petition was untimely under the Hague Convention. The court also affirmed the finding that the child was well settled in Maine and held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return. The judgment was affirmed. View "Xamplas v. Xamplas" on Justia Law

Two children were placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services after child protection proceedings were initiated against their parents in 2020 and 2021. The Department later filed petitions to terminate the parents’ rights, and the District Court entered judgments terminating those rights in March 2023. The children were placed with licensed foster parents for nineteen months, but were removed from their care in September 2024 following a report from the older child’s school regarding an incident involving the foster father.After the removal, the foster parents filed motions in the District Court (Springvale and Biddeford) seeking to intervene in the child protection case and requesting expedited judicial review of the children’s placement. They argued that their interests as prospective adoptive parents warranted party status. The Department opposed the motions, citing the children’s best interests and the purposes of the Child Protection Act. On November 6, 2024, the District Court summarily denied both motions. The foster parents appealed, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court directed the parties to address whether the orders were appealable under the relevant statute.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the orders denying intervention and expedited judicial review are interlocutory and not appealable under 22 M.R.S. § 4006, which strictly limits appeals in child protection matters to three types of orders: jeopardy orders, judgments terminating parental rights, and medical treatment orders. The Court clarified that it lacks authority to create judicial exceptions to this statutory limitation, even for denials of intervention. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. View "In re Children of Krystal W." on Justia Law

A father was charged with multiple offenses after his daughter reported that he had sexually assaulted her repeatedly over many years, with the earliest incident she could recall occurring when she was in second grade. The prosecution focused on three specific incidents of sexual assault that took place when the victim was sixteen, each on a different date and in different locations. The victim provided detailed testimony about these three incidents, and additional evidence included an audio recording made by the victim during one of the assaults. After the victim disclosed the abuse to her mother, law enforcement became involved, and a grand jury indicted the defendant on nine counts: three counts each of gross sexual assault, domestic violence assault, and endangering the welfare of a child, each set corresponding to one of the three incidents.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Sagadahoc County Unified Criminal Docket. The jury initially reported a partial deadlock but, after receiving a standard instruction for deadlocked juries, returned guilty verdicts on all nine counts. At sentencing, the court grouped the charges by incident date, imposed concurrent sentences within each group, and ordered the groups to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of twenty-seven years, with all but seventeen years suspended and three years of probation. The defendant appealed both his convictions and his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by not giving a specific unanimity instruction to the jury and by double counting the multiplicity of assaults during sentencing.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The Court held that a specific unanimity instruction was not required because each count was tied to a distinct incident on a specific date, and the jury instructions sufficiently ensured unanimity. The Court also held that the sentencing court did not err by considering the number of assaults at different points in its analysis, as this was consistent with established sentencing practices and did not constitute impermissible double counting. View "State v. Chase" on Justia Law

A woman was injured while visiting a property owned by a couple who were seeking tenants for a mobile home located on their land. The injury occurred when she stepped into a gap between the entryway stairs and the mobile home, a gap created during ongoing repairs. The couple had a homeowners insurance policy with State Mutual Insurance Company, but the policy’s declarations page listed a different property as the covered premises. The injured woman sued the couple for negligence, and the parties later entered into a settlement and stipulated judgment, with the couple paying part of the judgment and the woman seeking the remainder from the insurer under Maine’s reach-and-apply statute.The Superior Court of Waldo County granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that the insurance policy did not cover the property where the injury occurred. The court determined that the property was not an “insured location” under the policy and that the injury arose out of a condition of the uninsured premises, thus falling within a policy exclusion. The woman appealed this decision.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case de novo, considering both the interpretation of the insurance policy and the application of the reach-and-apply statute. The court held that the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of a premises owned by the insured but not listed as an insured location. The court also found that the property in question was not an “insured location” because the insureds did not reside there and it was not listed in the policy declarations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the policy did not provide coverage for the injury. View "Rowe v. State Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Heather M. Hodgson was charged with several offenses following an incident at her home involving her husband and their two children. The dispute began after her husband purchased alcohol, which upset Hodgson. Both consumed alcohol, and an argument ensued. During the altercation, Hodgson pointed a loaded firearm at her husband and fired a “warning shot” at the floor near his feet. The couple’s three-year-old child was present in the home and had come out of the bedroom during the argument. Hodgson was subsequently indicted on multiple charges, including domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, and endangering the welfare of a child.The case was tried without a jury in the Kennebec County Unified Criminal Docket. After the State presented its evidence, Hodgson moved for acquittal on some counts, which the court granted in part. Hodgson testified, claiming self-defense, but the court found her account not credible. The court found her guilty on three counts: domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, and endangering the welfare of a child. At sentencing, the court declined to impose the mandatory minimum one-year sentence for the reckless conduct charge, instead sentencing Hodgson to three years with all but ninety days suspended and probation.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed both Hodgson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the State’s appeal regarding the sentence. The Court affirmed Hodgson’s convictions, finding the evidence sufficient. However, it held that the trial court erred by not imposing the mandatory minimum one-year sentence required by statute for domestic violence reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon. The Court vacated the sentence for that count and remanded for resentencing consistent with the statutory requirement. View "State v. Hodgson" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in Maine received a tip from a confidential source about suspicious rental car activity by Calvin Vandine, who was known to use drugs and associate with traffickers. Officers tracked Vandine’s movements and, based on the tip and corroborating information, stopped his car, which was also occupied by Derric McLain. During the stop, officers found drugs and arrested both men. McLain was later identified as having outstanding warrants, including for drug trafficking. The stop lasted about twenty-eight minutes, and a subsequent search revealed significant quantities of controlled substances.Prior to trial in the Penobscot County Unified Criminal Docket, McLain moved to suppress evidence from the stop and statements made during custodial interrogation, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion for the prolonged detention and that he had not waived his privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court (Anderson, J.) denied the motion to suppress, finding the stop justified and the statements admissible. After a jury trial before Justice Murray, McLain was convicted of aggravated drug trafficking and violation of condition of release, receiving a substantial sentence.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the denial of the suppression motion. The Court affirmed the lower court’s findings that the stop, search, and arrest were supported by reasonable suspicion and were not unconstitutionally prolonged. However, the Court held that McLain did not clearly waive his privilege against self-incrimination under article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution, as his responses during interrogation were ambiguous and officers failed to clarify his intent. The Court vacated the conviction and the suppression order in part, remanding for further proceedings, and established that a clear and unequivocal waiver is required before custodial interrogation may proceed in Maine. View "State v. McLain" on Justia Law

A group of seven property owners and part-time residents in Northeast Harbor challenged the approval of a six-unit subdivision proposed by Mount Desert 365 (MD 365) on a 0.9-acre parcel. The subdivision, called Heel Way, was designed to provide workforce housing and consisted of two double-dwelling-unit buildings and two single-dwelling-unit buildings on a commonly owned lot. The Town of Mount Desert Planning Board held nine meetings, considered input from the developer, residents, and the public, and ultimately approved the application in October 2023, issuing a written decision in December 2023.The residents sought judicial review in the Maine Superior Court, which transferred the case to the Business and Consumer Docket. In June 2024, the Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the Planning Board’s decision, and the residents appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Planning Board’s decision directly, applying de novo review to the ordinance interpretation. The Court held that the Planning Board correctly determined that the subdivision did not create separate lots and thus did not need to meet access-road requirements. The Planning Board also did not abuse its discretion in waiving the performance bond in favor of a conditional agreement. The Court affirmed the Planning Board’s calculation of density requirements, finding no error in its methodology.However, the Court found that the Planning Board erred by declining to calculate the open-space requirements under the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the Business and Consumer Docket with instructions to remand to the Planning Board for further consideration of the open-space calculation. View "Cannon v. Town of Mount Desert" on Justia Law

A condominium association challenged the validity of a property transaction involving a shorefront parcel that was originally added to the condominium by the declarant, who had expressly reserved development rights, including the right to withdraw land. After the original declarant’s unsuccessful development efforts, the property and associated development rights were transferred to a lender and then to a successor declarant. The successor declarant withdrew the shorefront parcel from the condominium and conveyed it to another entity without obtaining the written consent of 80% of the unit owners. The association argued that this withdrawal and conveyance violated the Maine Condominium Act and sought to have the transaction set aside, as well as to recover attorney fees.The Business and Consumer Docket (a Maine trial court) granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the withdrawal and conveyance were valid exercises of the declarant’s reserved development rights under the condominium declaration and the Maine Condominium Act. The court denied the association’s motion for summary judgment and set remaining claims for trial. On the day of trial, the parties reached a settlement, which was incorporated into a final judgment. The settlement preserved the association’s right to appeal the summary judgment ruling on the withdrawal of the shorefront parcel.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court held that a declarant’s properly reserved development rights, including the right to withdraw land, are not subject to the statutory requirement that 80% of unit owners approve the withdrawal of common elements. The court also rejected the association’s claim for attorney fees, finding that the parties’ settlement agreement foreclosed such a claim. View "The Village at Ocean's End Condominium Association v. Southwest Harbor Properties LLC" on Justia Law

A police officer in Pittsfield, Maine, stopped Michael L. Kilgore for speeding and discovered possible license restrictions. During the stop, Kilgore became agitated, drove away while the officer was standing next to his vehicle, and ran over her foot. After a pursuit, Kilgore was apprehended following a physical altercation with the officer, during which he kicked and punched her before being subdued. The officer suffered injuries requiring medical attention. Kilgore was charged with multiple offenses, including aggravated assault, assault on an officer, and several related charges.The Somerset County Unified Criminal Docket held a jury trial. The jury found Kilgore guilty of assault on an officer (Class C) and the lesser included offense of assault (Class D), but acquitted him of aggravated assault and other charges. The trial court merged the assault conviction into the assault on an officer conviction and sentenced Kilgore to forty-two months in prison, with all but nine months suspended, followed by probation. Kilgore appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were flawed because they failed to properly inform the jury of the State’s burden to disprove the defenses of self-defense, duress, and competing harms beyond a reasonable doubt, and did not instruct the jury to acquit if the State failed to meet that burden.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case for obvious error. The Court found that the trial court’s jury instructions contained two significant errors: they allowed the jury to find Kilgore guilty based solely on the elements of the offenses without considering the generated defenses, and they failed to instruct the jury to acquit if the State did not disprove duress and competing harms. The Court held that these errors were plain, affected Kilgore’s substantial rights, and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial. View "State of Maine v. Kilgore" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who lived with his spouse, her daughter (the victim), and her younger sons in Wiscasset, Maine, from 2019 to 2022. The victim, beginning at age eight and continuing until nearly twelve, testified that the defendant repeatedly sexually assaulted her, describing both generic and three specific incidents. The assaults included acts in the defendant’s bedroom, during a family bonfire, and in a car. The victim disclosed the abuse to her mother and a friend, which led to a police investigation. The defendant was charged with gross sexual assault and violating a condition of release, with the alleged conduct occurring between January 2020 and July 2022.The Lincoln County Unified Criminal Docket held a jury trial for the gross sexual assault charge and a nonjury trial for the violation of release. The State’s evidence consisted primarily of the victim’s testimony, supported by her mother and the investigating detective. The defendant did not testify or present evidence. Both parties reviewed and did not object to the court’s draft jury instructions, which included a general unanimity instruction but not a specific unanimity instruction regarding the factual basis for conviction. The jury found the defendant guilty of gross sexual assault, and the court found him guilty of violating a condition of release. The defendant was sentenced to eighteen years in prison for gross sexual assault and six months for the release violation, to run concurrently.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the absence of a specific unanimity instruction and certain statements by the prosecutor during closing arguments constituted obvious error. The court held that, although the lack of a specific unanimity instruction was plain error, it did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights given the nature of the evidence and arguments. The court also found that any prosecutorial error in closing arguments did not rise to the level of obvious error. The judgment was affirmed. View "State of Maine v. Schooley" on Justia Law