Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of operating under the influence of intoxicants (OUI) with one previous OUI conviction within a ten-year period. Defendant appealed, contending that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test and the events that followed and in applying the corpus delicti rule as modified by Me. Rev. Stat. 29-A, 2431(4). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant was not subject to an unlawful arrest when the HGN test was administered, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2 )the trial court reasonably inferred that a statement made by Defendant was an admission of driving, and the statement was sufficient to establish that Defendant operated a vehicle without further proof of corpus delicti. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon. Applying the minimum mandatory sentencing provision of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 17-A, 1252(5), apparently on its own initiative, the trial court sentenced Defendant to one year in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence imposed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court did not err in excluding or limiting certain evidence Defendant sought to introduce through a lay witness, a private investigator; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a mistrial and instead provided a curative instruction in response to a comment the prosecutor made in rebuttal; and (4) because the parties agreed that the court should reconsider the sentence, the sentence should be vacated. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Kline" on Justia Law

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices subpoenaed documents and testimony from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) seeking the names of donors to NOM in order to determine whether NOM had complied with Maine's campaign laws during the 2009 election season. The superior court affirmed the Commission's decision not to vacate or modify the subpoenas. Appellants, including NOM and Stand for Marriage Maine PAC, appealed, contending that the Commission's subpoenas infringed on their right to freedom of association because disclosure would expose NOM's donors to threats, harassment, and reprisal. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding that the record did not support Appellants' constitutional argument. View "Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices" on Justia Law

After Father tested positive three times for marijuana use in violation of conditions of probation, the Department of Health and Human Resources removed Father's son, T.B., from Father's care. Father was incarcerated for a third time during a reunification period with T.B., and the Department subsequently filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. Father moved for substitution of court-appointed counsel, which the district court denied on the grounds that the trial was to start in two days. After a three-week continuance, the trial was held, and the court terminated Father's parental rights. Father appealed, contending that he was denied due process when the district court did not, on its own initiative, inform him that he could proceed without counsel after denying his motion to dismiss his current counsel or his implicit motion to appoint new counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of unlawful sexual contact. The Supreme Court vacated the sentences imposed on Defendant. On remand and after a hearing, the superior court imposed consecutive sentences on each of the counts for an overall sentence of twenty-seven years in prison. Defendant challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing that his overall sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that, by imposing a sentence that included twenty-seven unsuspended years of incarceration, the superior court exceeded its discretion because the overall sentence was far out of line with sentences of other defendants convicted of unlawful sexual contact. View "State v. Stanislaw" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of assault and refusing to submit to arrest. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that he was competent to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at the competency hearing - namely, Defendant's own testimony - was sufficient to support the court's determination, by a preponderance of the evidence made after the competency hearing, that Defendant was competent to stand trial; (2) the trial court did not err in failing to reconsider Defendant's competency during the trial itself; and (3) Defendant's remaining considerations were without merit. View "State v. Nickerson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to operating under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop of his vehicle for lack of reasonable articulable suspicion. The trial court agreed that the police trooper, who followed Defendant's car into a business park and interacted with Defendant after he stopped his vehicle, lacked the required reasonable articulable suspicion. The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the trial court's decision granting Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the lower court erred in determining that the trooper seized Defendant by following him into the park, as Defendant was not subject to physical force or show of authority. Remanded. View "State v. Collier" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of arson. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the indictment and jury verdict did not deprive Defendant of his constitutional right to be free of double jeopardy because the trial court consolidated two separate counts of arson based on one criminal act identified in the indictment and jury verdict and sentenced Defendant for only one count of arson; and (2) under the circumstances, the trial court did not deprive Defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it overruled Defendant's objection to the testimony of an anticipating defense witness who decided, mid-trial, to testify for the prosecution in exchange for a promise of immunity. View "State v. Bellavance" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a child protection petition against D.P.'s parents, alleging that the parents placed D.P. in jeopardy. Mother filed a petition to terminate her own parental rights without a jeopardy hearing. In the petition, Mother agreed to a finding of jeopardy based on her substance abuse but sought to avoid a jeopardy hearing involving evidence of her sexual abuse of D.P. The court dismissed mother's termination petition, concluding that Mother did not have a statutory or constitutional right to petition to terminate her own parental rights or to forgo a full jeopardy hearing. After a jeopardy hearing, the court found jeopardy as to both parents based on domestic violence, abandonment, and sexual abuse of D.P. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in holding the jeopardy hearing despite Mother's desire to terminate her parental rights on grounds of her own choosing, as (1) Mother was not statutorily authorized to petition to terminate her own parental rights; and (2) the lack of such statutory authority did not violate the U.S. Constitution. View "In re D.P." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of burglary and theft by unauthorized taking or transfer for taking building materials worth more than $1,000. Defendant's adult son had told the police that he helped Defendant take the materials, but during the trial, he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial court erred when it admitted redacted versions of two statements his son made earlier to the police that incriminated both Defendant and his son. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that the trial court erred in admitting the statements of Defendant's son based both on the Rules of Evidence and the U.S. Constitution, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "State v. Larsen" on Justia Law