Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Gary Gauthier Jr. and his co-defendant were each convicted of murder following a joint jury trial. After the Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, Gauthier filed a petition for post-conviction review, claiming he had been denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. The superior court denied Gauthier's petition, finding the strategy adopted by Gauthier's attorney did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the post-conviction court's findings were supported by competent record evidence and the court did not commit clear error in concluding that Gauthier failed to meet his burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Gauthier v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Stanley Ward was convicted of kidnapping, attempted murder, and robbery and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of fifty years, all but forty-five years suspended. Ward challenged the sentences on the grounds that (1) the length of the sentences, both individually and collectively, violated his constitutional protection against cruel or unusual punishment; (2) when the court found the facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences, resulting in a longer period of incarceration than the statutory maximum for any of his convictions individual, it violated his constitutional right to trial by jury; and (3) the court erred in its application of Me. Rev. Stat. 1256 in imposing consecutive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) Ward's collective and individual sentences did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment; (2) the superior court's imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate Ward's right to trial by jury; and (3) the superior court properly determined that the statute did not bar the imposition of consecutive sentences under these circumstances. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former corrections officer, was dismissed after an administrative hearing on November 4, 2009. On November 18, the commissioners issued their written decision which containted their findings and rationale. On December 18, the appellant filed a compliant asserting a due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and a wrongful termination claim pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. 501(3)(A). At issue was what constitutes ânotice of any actionâ to trigger M.R. Civ. P. 80B(b)âs 30-day time limit for filing an administrative appeal. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower courtâs dismissal of appellantâs due process and wrongful termination claims as untimely, holding that Rule 80B(b)âs time limit for seeking review of a decision to dismiss an employee does not commence until the employee receives a written decision of the county commissioners or personnel board. The Court also held that because appellant did not have an opportunity to address his suspension before he was terminated, direct review pursuant to Rule 80B(b) would not provide an adequate remedy for appellantâs Section 1983 claim; therefore, denial of appellantâs right to due process of law was independent of his administrative appeal.

âPenelope W.â appealed lower courtsâ decisions that involuntarily committed her to a state psychiatric center. In all aspects of her case, Penelope represented herself. The trial court concluded that she was mentally ill, and that she presented a likelihood of serious harm to herself and others. The appellate court denied Penelopeâs appeal because she failed to comply with the courtâs briefing requirements. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Penelope argued that she should not have been allowed to proceed at trial without counsel, particularly since involuntary commitment was at stake. The Supreme Court found although there is a limited right to self-representation in criminal cases, the same cannot be said for a civil commitment proceeding. The Court affirmed the trial courtâs decision that ordered Penelope to be committed.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Dwayne and Debbie Bonney appeal the lower courtâs decision granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Stephens Memorial Hospital. The Court vacated the decision on the state law claims, and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs drove themselves to the hospital after a violent assault that took place at their home. A hospital security guard overheard the Plaintiffsâ discussion with nursing staff, and said that he was going to call the police. Despite the Plaintiffsâ protest, the guard made the call, and disclosed all information he overheard. Based on this information, police obtained a warrant to search the Plaintiffs' home, found evidence of marijuana cultivation, leading to the Plaintiffsâ subsequent indictment and conviction on drug trafficking charges. Citing a violation of state and federal law for unauthorized disclosure of health care information, the Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages from the hospital and the unnamed guard. On appeal, the Court found that the lower court erred in dismissing the Plaintiffsâ state claims under summary judgment: â30-A.M.R.S. § 287 does not shield health care providers for the unauthorized reporting of confidential health care information when the reporting involved is not related to an examination of a victim performed to obtain evidence for the prosecution.â The Court upheld dismissal of the Plaintiffsâ claims under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) finding the law authorizes no private cause of action.