Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of gross sexual assault and suspended to twenty years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the prosecutor engaged in impermissible misconduct, and the trial court erred in determining his sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor violated the state and federal Constitutions by eliciting testimony that Defendant did not return phone calls from police and by arguing to the jury that Defendant’s pre-arrest silence demonstrated consciousness of guilt, and the error seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings; and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by vouching for witness credibility even after the court determined that the statements were impermissible, and the error was not harmless.View "State v. Lovejoy" on Justia Law

After a six-day jury trial, Defendant was convicted of gross sexual assault and sentenced to a term of twenty-four years. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the trial court did not commit obvious error in denying Defendant’s access to immigration records pertaining to the victim’s mother; (2) the process used by the trial court to ensure that Defendant, who spoke Spanish, received adequate interpretation services at trial was appropriate and was not in error; and (3) the remainder of Defendant’s arguments on appeal were without merit.View "State v. Marroquin-Aldana" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of knowing or intentional murder and sentenced to two concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find all of the elements of the crime charged; (2) the sentencing court did not misapply sentencing principles; and (3) the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that aggravating and mitigating factors did not require a departure from the basic sentence, and the court did not impermissibly or unconstitutionally impose a sentence that was more severe based upon Defendant’s exercise of his right to a trial.View "State v. Hayden" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of intentional or knowing murder and sentenced to seventy years imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court violated his right to confront witnesses by admitting medical examiner testimony because the testimony relied in part on an autopsy report created by a different medical examiner who did not testify at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Mitchell, the admission of the medical examiner’s testimony was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause; and (2) Defendant’s remaining assertions of error were unavailing.View "State v. Mercier" on Justia Law

Since 1983, Michael Dee repeatedly and unsuccessfully challenged in state and federal courts the constitutionality of Maine marijuana prohibitions. In 2007, the superior court enjoined Dee from filing further lawsuits in Maine courts challenging the constitutionality of the State’s marijuana laws. Despite this injunction, Dee did not request the court’s permission to file this complaint for a judgment declaring that provisions in several Maine marijuana statutes were unconstitutional until almost one month after his complaint was docketed. The superior court dismissed Dee’s complaint with prejudice, finding that several Maine courts had already considered and rejected Dee’s arguments and that the suit was frivolous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that in light of the frivolous and duplicative nature of the suit and Dee’s failure to seek permission before commencing this action, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to dismiss Dee’s petition with prejudice. View "Dee v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of several sex offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed after clarifying the conduct the State was required to prove in order to prove the element of penetration, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of unlawful sexual conduct, as the jury could have rationally made the finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense; and (2) conducting voir dire, as no individual voir dire member disclosed a general bias against a defendant with mental illness.View "State v. Gladu" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, primary custody of M.M. was awarded to Mother. Later, the district court modified the judgment by awarding sole parental rights to Father. Petitioners - Mother’s investigator and three private citizens with no natural or legal relationship to M.M. - subsequently filed a petition for a child protection order seeking to have the district court find that M.M. required protection because of circumstances of jeopardy created by Father. The court dismissed the petition, finding that some of the claims asserted were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, other claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and Petitioners lacked standing. The Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner had standing to bring the petition for a child protection order and otherwise affirmed the judgment.View "In re M.M." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal operating under the influence and refusing to sign a uniform summons and complaint. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that he did not properly waive his right to be assisted by counsel at trial. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the record did not reflect - either through Defendant’s own responses to the court regarding the trial process, counsel’s statements regarding Defendant’s waiver, or evidence regarding whether Defendant was informed about the trial process - that Defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his constitutional right to counsel.View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of operating after habitual offender revocation. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred when it failed to clarify the definition of “public way” as defined in Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 505(2); (2) the statute’s language is confusing and unconstitutionally vague; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve her clarification argument; (2) the language of the statute is outdated and confusing but describes a certain type of public way with sufficient certainty to survive a due process challenge; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.View "State v. Stanley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of manslaughter. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was subjected to custodial interrogation and did not receive Miranda warnings and because he was in a state of shock and emotional distress that rendered his statements involuntary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that Defendant’s statements were not made in the course of custodial interrogation for purposes of Miranda; and (2) the trial court did not err in determining that Defendant’s statements were made voluntarily. View "State v. Bryant" on Justia Law