Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant’s probation officer asked Defendant to come to the probation office. When Defendant complied, he met two state troopers who sat down with him and asked him about a theft at the victim’s apartment. After the interview, Defendant made incriminating statements. Defendant was charged with burglary and theft by unauthorized taking or transfer. Defendant moved to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement. The trial court determined that Defendant spoke voluntarily and that he was not in custody, and therefore, Miranda warnings were not required. Defendant was subsequently convicted of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in determining that Miranda warnings were unnecessary because Defendant was not in custody; (2) the trial court did not err in concluding that the confession was voluntary; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. View "State v. Kittredge" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of failing to provide his correct, name, address, and date of birth; possession or distribution of dangerous knives; and refusing to submit to arrest or detention. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction of failing to give his correct name, address, and date of birth but otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights at a suppression hearing by admitting testimony of police officers because the testimony was not hearsay; and (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction of failing to give his correct name, address, and date of birth. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2013, Defendant was tried on a charge of domestic violence assault. During the trial proceedings, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after finding manifest necessity to declare a mistrial. Concluding that the mistrial did not involve prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court ruled that the State was entitled to retry its case. Defendant appealed, arguing that double jeopardy barred retrial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant consented to a mistrial, and because intentional prosecutorial misconduct did not bar a retrial, there was no barrier to retrial under the double jeopardy clause. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of assault on an officer and criminal mischief. Appellant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by electing not to make an opening statement, not cross-examining the State’s witnesses, not presenting any evidence for the defense, and presenting only a brief closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issues Appellant raised regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were not properly raised on direct appeal and instead must be addressed in a fact-finding proceeding to determine if trial counsel’s action resulted from incompetence, appropriate strategic choices, or other considerations. View "State v. Troy" on Justia Law

John and Jane Doe, the parents Susan Doe, a transgender girl, filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission alleging that Regional School Unit 26 (RSU 26) had violated the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) by excluding Susan from the communal girls’ bathroom at elementary and middle school. The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe discrimination had occurred. Thereafter, the Does and the Commission filed a complaint in the superior court asserting claims for unlawful discrimination in education (Count I) and unlawful discrimination in a place of public accommodation (Count II) on the basis of sexual orientation. The superior court granted RSU 26’s motion for summary judgment on all counts. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that where it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend on being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying the student access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the MHRA. Remanded for entry of summary judgment for the Does and the Commission. View "Doe v. Reg'l Sch. Unit 26" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a public assistance recipient who was accepted to rent an apartment owned by RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC. Plaintiff’s caseworker indicated that Coach Lantern would have to include a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) tenancy addendum in Plaintiff’s lease for Plaintiff to be able to use her voucher for subsidized rent. Coach Lantern refused to include the addendum in Plaintiff’s lease. Because Plaintiff could not use the voucher unless Coach Lantern included the addendum in her lease, Plaintiff did not rent the apartment. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission alleging that Coach Lantern’s policy of refusing to include the HUD tenancy addendum in her lease constituted a refusal to participate in the voucher program, which amounted to discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of her status as a public assistance recipient in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of Coach Lantern. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Coach Lantern because the undisputed facts showed that Coach Lantern did not discriminate against Plaintiff in violation of the MHRA. View "Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Steven L. was ordered involuntarily committed to a hospital for up to ninety days. During the term of commitment, the hospital applied for an order directing Steven’s involuntary admission to a progressive treatment program. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court ordered Steven admitted to the progressive treatment program for twelve months. The superior court affirmed the judgment. Steven appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the appendix, appellee’s brief, and reply brief were due in the appeal, Steven was discharged when the progressive treatment program’s term expired. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Steven had been discharged and the progressive treatment program had expired and because none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "In re Steven L." on Justia Law

The Department of Environmental Protection granted DCP Midstream Partners, LP, a permit to construct a liquefied petroleum gas terminal near Searsport. Thanks But No Tank and several individuals (collectively TBNT) sought review of the Department's decision. The superior court affirmed. Four months after TBNT filed its notice of appeal, DCP withdrew its municipal application and petitioned the Department to surrender the permits. The Department granted DCP's petition. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed this appeal as moot and (1) declined to vacate the judgment of the superior court, and (2) denied TBNT's motion for costs, as it was not a prevailing party pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 1501. View "Thanks But No Tank v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated trafficking of a schedule W drug within one thousand feet of a school and of twice violating the conditions of his release in a related case. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction review, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation to discover three recent pending criminal matters against a key witness and in failing to impeach the credibility of the witness on that basis. The post-conviction court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record supported the court's finding that defense counsel provided effective assistance regarding the witness' second and third criminal matters; and (2) the court did not err in concluding that discovering and impeaching the witness on the first criminal matter likely would not have affected the outcome of the trial. View "Lamarre v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on charges of burglary and theft. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to three search warrants for Defendant's house, garage, and car. The superior court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the first affidavit did not establish probable cause for a search and that the evidence seized pursuant to the third search warrant, which allowed officers to search Defendant's house again after the initial search, must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of the evidence obtained in the three searches, holding (1) the first affidavit provided an insufficient basis for a finding of probable cause; (2) the officers' reliance on the warrants was not objectively reasonable; and (3) because the third warrant relied heavily on observations officers made while executing the first warrant, the evidence seized pursuant to that warrant must also be suppressed. View "State v. Johndro" on Justia Law