Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Raymond Cloutier appealed from a judgment entered in the district court granting Robin Turner's motion to enforce the child support provisions of a 1992 amended divorce judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) Turner had standing to bring the motion even though the children were above the ages of eighteen because, although the obligation to provide future support ends when the child reaches majority, liability for arrearages does not terminate then; (2) where child-support arrearages are considered money judgments and there is no statute of limitations for money judgments, Turner's claim of overdue child support was not time-barred; (3) the court's failure to apply the statute of limitations did not deprive Cloutier of his constitutional right of equal protection because Cloutier was not treated any differently than fathers who are subject to child support enforcement stemming from a paternity action; and (4) Cloutier failed to make the showing necessary to establish the defense of laches. View "Cloutier v. Turner" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs, unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs, and illegal importation of scheduled drugs. Defendant moved to suppress incriminating statements he made to a Maine Drug Enforcement Agency (MDEA) agent while in the agent's custody and after Defendant had invoked his right to counsel in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The superior court granted Defendant's motion after applying Maryland v. Shatzer, concluding that the State had failed to prove that Defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary because the agent had resumed his questioning of Defendant just a few hours after Defendant had invoked his right to counsel, far less than the fourteen-day standard required by Shatzer. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court, holding that the court erred by evaluating the evidence and rendering its findings through the lens of the Shatzer fourteen-day standard and should have employed the analytical framework advanced in Edwards v. Arizona and Oregon v. Bradshaw in determining whether Defendant voluntarily reinitiated interrogation. Remanded for the court to reconsider the evidentiary record and to apply the Edwards and Bradshaw standards. View "State v. Knowlton" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Rory Holland was convicted of two counts of intentional or knowing murder and sentenced to two concurrent life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit evidence of the victims' reputations for violence that was not known to Holland prior to the murders; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a book containing the Maine Criminal Code into evidence where the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial; (3) the trial court properly denied Holland's motion in limine to permit statements from an earlier civil trial to be admitted into evidence to provide context for Holland's reaction to threats and violence; (4) there was sufficient evidence to disprove Holland's claim of self-defense; (5) the trial court did not err by allowing the State to reopen its case to present evidence regarding identification of Holland; and (6) the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing concurrent life sentences. View "State v. Holland" on Justia Law

While Shawn Sayer was incarcerated, the district court granted a final order for protection from abuse to Liv Morrison. Sayer appealed, asserting, inter alia, that he was deprived of due process by not being given the opportunity to be present at or participate in the hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that Sayer's incarceration and the need to protect his rights by facilitating his participation in the hearing, either in person or by a remote video or audio connection, demonstrated good cause to either make an accommodation to allow him to participate in the hearing or grant a short continuance of the hearing to allow his participation on another date. Remanded. View "Morrison v. Sayer" on Justia Law

Laurie Katon was involved in continuing litigation with her daughter and former son-in-law concerning their child, her granddaughter. In the instant case, Katon petitioned for visitation pursuant to the Grandparents Visitation Act. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that because Katon had improperly withheld her granddaughter from the father, she could not establish standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition because the urgent reasons that may justify grandparent visitation consistent with constitutional standards do not exist where a grandparent has improperly withheld a grandchild from his or her parents. View "Katon v. Brandi M." on Justia Law

Larry Hilderbrand, a law enforcement officer employed by the police department, was working with the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency (MDEA) when the county sheriff received a video of Hilderbrand behaving crassly. The sheriff then publicly announced that his department would discontinue working with the MDEA because Hilderbrand was assigned to it and stated that his decision was based on the video. Hilderbrand subsequently filed a three-count complaint against the county commissioners and the sheriff alleging slander per se, invasion of privacy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the commissioners and sheriff, concluding that the sheriff had discretionary function immunity and the commissioners could not be liable for the sheriff's conduct because he was not their employee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that application of the factors set forth in Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst. to the undisputed facts indicated the sheriff's allegedly tortious activities were within the Maine Tort Claim Act's discretionary function immunity provision, and the superior court did not err in dismissing the suit against him on that basis. View "Hilderbrand v. Washington County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Daniel Fortune was found guilty on eleven counts related to the attempted murder of a five-member family in their home. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and resulting sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it instructed the jury that it could find Fortune guilty of attempted murder if the jury found that the State had proved attempted murder as to one of three victims named in a single count of the indictment; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Fortune's convictions of the aggravated attempted murders of two of the victims; (3) the aggravated murder statute does not violate the state or federal Constitution; (4) the sentencing court did not err in its application of the sentencing analysis, resulting in the imposition of concurrent life sentences for two counts of aggravated attempted murder, and the court did not err concluding that a split sentence was not available to Fortune; and (5) the fact that the sentencing court did not clearly articulate on the record the three-step sentencing analysis in determining the concurrent sentences imposed on the remaining nine felony counts was harmless, assuming it was error at all. View "State v. Fortune" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant David Churchill was found guilty of one count of unlawful sexual contact. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting in evidence a printout of an online chat between Defendant and the victim, a twelve-year-old girl, because the printout was not authenticated pursuant to Me. R. Evid. 901(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly concluded that testimony of a police detective was sufficient to authenticate the chat log, and (2) other evidence established that Defendant was the person with whom the victim was chatting, so no greater showing was required. View "State v. Churchill" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs. The superior court denied Defendant's motion for a new trial. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion for a new trial because post-conviction review was the exclusive avenue for judicial review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and (2) because Defendant did not avail himself of the post-conviction review process, the Court could not decide if, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, the post-conviction review procedure was unconstitutional as applied to Defendant's circumstances. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

Employee brought an employment discrimination claim against Employer pursuant to the Maine Human Rights Act, alleging that Employer discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation. A jury entered a verdict for Employee and awarded Employee compensatory and punitive damages. Employer appealed, arguing, among other things, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record contained sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that actions of Employer made it futile for Employee to apply for a promotion, and thus, Employee's failure to apply for the position fell under the futility exception to the rule that an individual must apply for a position before he can claim he was denied that position; (2) the court applied the proper statutory cap to the jury's award; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Employer's motion for a new trial or remittitur of damages. View "Russell v. ExpressJet Airlines" on Justia Law