Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court acquitting Defendant of eluding an officer after a jury found him guilty of that offense and two misdemeanors, holding that the evidence rationally supported the jury's verdict.The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty of all three charges for which he was indicted. Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the charge of eluding an officer, arguing that his speed was not reckless under the circumstances. The court granted the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of acquittal, holding that the jury could rationally find that Defendant operated at a "reckless rate of speed" - a required element of eluding an officer. View "State v. Brackett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the City of Sanford following a jury trial on Plaintiff's complaint alleging that the City discriminated against him because of his disability, in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4553-A(1)(A)(C)-(D), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the superior court erred in excluding his proposed jury instruction that "it is illegal as a matter of law for any employer to impose a 100% healed or 100% fit policy on any applicants for employment or any employees." The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff properly preserved his objection to the court's instructions; and (2) the trial court did not err by rejecting Plaintiff's proposed instruction because it was sufficiently covered in the court's instructions. View "Smith v. City of Sanford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs and falsifying physical evidence, entered after a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of what Defendant argued was an unlawful arrest; (2) there was no obvious error in the admission of lay opinion testimony by law enforcement officers on certain matters; (3) the record evidence was sufficient to justify the trial court's giving a permissible-inference instruction; and (4) there was no error or abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion for new trial and for judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Abdullahi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of burglary, entered following a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that he should be granted an acquittal.Defendant was indicted for various offenses, including burglary. During the jury trial, after the State rested, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the State had not proven that he was not licensed or privileged to be in the house at issue because he was legally present on the premises as a tenant. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could find that Defendant knew that he lacked the right to possess or occupy the premises the night of the offense; and (2) therefore, Defendant was not entitled to an acquittal. View "State v. Every" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of gross sexual assault but vacated his sentence of eight years' imprisonment to be followed by eight years of supervised release, holding that there was no error in Defendant's conviction but that the sentencing analysis used by the trial court resulted in obvious error that required correction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed obvious error in its treatment of a note from the jurors during jury deliberations and because of prosecutorial error. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) Defendant waived any objection to the court's response to the note; (2) there was no prosecutorial error or impropriety; and (3) the lower court had the authority to impose what was a lawful amended sentence, but the sentencing analysis employed by the court required that this Court vacate the sentence and remand for a de novo sentencing hearing. View "State v. Cummings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault, robbery, domestic violence assault, domestic violence criminal threatening, and theft by unauthorized taking or transfer but reversed his sentence, holding that the trial court erred by failing to merge duplicative counts.The Supreme Judicial Court remanded this case for resentencing, holding (1) the trial court did not err in failing to give a specific unanimity instruction in addition to the given general unanimity instruction; (2) the trial court erred in failing to merge the duplicative counts of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer and robbery, resulting in a double-jeopardy violation; and (3) the trial court's reliance on Defendant's decision to seek a trial as an aggravating factor in his sentence was unconstitutional. View "State v. Chase" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for three counts of intentional or knowing murder, among other crimes, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant challenged the decision of the trial court to admit a statement that he made to police in which he identified the number and names of his victims and argued that the trial court committed obvious error by instructing the jury on the thirty-party provocation exception to the use of deadly force. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in admitting Defendant's challenged statement was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt; and (2) the trial court did not commit obvious error by reciting a portion of the self-defense statute that was not generated by the evidence. View "State v. Bonfanti" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of gross sexual assault and two counts of unlawful sexual contact, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a continuance; (2) there was no constitutional error in the trial court's ruling requiring that participants in Defendant's trial be masked; (3) there was no prosecutorial error in either the State's opening or closing argument or in the State's rebuttal argument; and (4) Defendant's claims of evidentiary error were unavailing. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of intentional or knowing murder and his thirty-five-year sentence, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and robbery of the same victim. On remand, the trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty-five years for the murder conviction and twenty tears for the robbery conviction, to be served concurrently. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the lower court did not violate Defendant's constitutional rights to a sentence proportional to the offense in imposing the sentence; and (2) the lower court did not obviously err in failing to provide the jury a self-defense instruction under Me. Rev. Stat. 108(2)(A)(2). View "State v. Asante" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the post-conviction review (PCR) court denying Appellant's PCR petitions, holding that the PCR court misconstrued aspects of the relevant law.In his speedy trial petitions, Defendant argued that his rights to a speedy trial had been violated and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise his speedy trial claims. The PCR court denied the petition. Thereafter, Defendant sought a certificate of probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) the PCR court utilized a faulty analysis in concluding that there was no merit to Defendant's speedy trial claim; and (2) because the PCR court did not analyze counsel's strategy in failing to assert Defendant's right to a speedy trial the case must be remanded. View "Winchester v. State" on Justia Law