Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction entered by the trial court following his conditional guilty plea to manslaughter. Defendant contended (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police officers during the investigation of his infant daughter's death, and (2) the juvenile court erred by admitting hearsay evidence during Defendant's juvenile bind-over hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) any statements made by Defendant during interrogations were not subject to the requirements of Miranda and were therefore not excludable on those grounds, the court properly considered Defendant's juvenile status, and the court did not err in concluding that Defendant's confession was voluntary; and (2) the court did not err by treating the hearsay testimony during the bind-over hearing as reliable, and therefore, its admission was not error. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) appealed from a judgment entered in the district court modifying a child support order of the family law magistrate. DHHS asserted (1) the district court erred in crediting toward Father's support obligation the dependent benefit his daughter received based on his Social Security retirement account, and (2) the magistrate did not abuse her discretion in declining to deviate from the child support guidelines. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the district court's judgment, holding (1) the district court erred in granting Father credit toward his support obligation based on his daughter's Social Security retirement dependent benefit; and (2) the magistrate acted within the bounds of her discretion in concluding that a deviation was not warranted. Remanded with instructions to reinstate the magistrate's modification order. View "Wong v. Hawk" on Justia Law

Home Loan Investment Bank appealed from a judgment entered in the superior court following a bench trial that confirmed the validity of the mechanic's liens to Jim's Plumbing and Heating, Inc. and Westbrook Tools, Inc. against Bedford Falls Associates for work performed at a commercial property. The Bank argued that the court erred as a matter of law and fact by concluding that the liens had priority over two mortgages granted to Bedford Falls for the acquisition and renovation of the property because it did not consent to the work performed by Jim's Plumbing or Westbrook Tools. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported a finding that the Bank had sufficiently specific knowledge of Jim's Plumbing and Westbrook Tools's labor and materials to infer that the Bank consented to the labor and materials secured by the liens. View "Jim's Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Home Loan Inv. Bank" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of unlawful sexual contact and of violating a condition of release. Defendant challenged his convictions on appeal, asserting (1) the superior court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on assault as a lesser-included offense of unlawful sexual contact, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to find that he had "contact" with the victim in violation of his conditions of release. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the judgment of conviction for unlawful sexual contact, holding that the court failed to properly instruct the jury on assault as a lesser-included offense of unlawful sexual contact; and (2) affirmed the judgment of conviction for violating a condition of release, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record upon which the jury could find every element of the offense of violating a condition of release beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Gantnier" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a motor vehicle collision involving Roger Linton and James Carey that resulted in Carey's death. At the time of the collision, Linton was driving a truck owned by Jonathan Jennings, for whom Linton worked as an independent contractor. Jennings's insurer, State Farm, filed a declaratory judgment action against Carey's Estate and Linton to determine whether it was responsible for liability coverage and obligated to defend and indemnify Linton for claims arising from the collision. The superior court entered a judgment in favor of State Farm, concluding that Linton was not an insured covered by Jennings's policy because his use of the truck was not within the scope of Jennings's consent. At issue on appeal was whether the superior court erred in its application of the minor deviation rule in determining that Linton's use of the truck exceeded the scope of Jennings's consent. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, clarified the applicable burdens associated with the minor deviation rule, and remanded for the superior court to apply the minor deviation rule as clarified. View "State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Carey" on Justia Law

Norman Budge and twenty-eight additional parties (collectively, Employees) filed a complaint for review of government action for the Town of Millinocket's (Town) amendments to its personnel policy originally adopted as a town ordinance. In the most recent amendment, the Town reduced its obligation for paying for the health insurance plan for its employees and established a new policy for the health insurance offered to retirees that resulted in the Town reducing its payment of the retirees' premiums. Employees alleged that, regardless of the policy language, this reduction was inconsistent with promises made to them either when they were hired or during their tenure with the Town. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the personnel policy did not create an enforceable contract between the Town and its employees; (2) the Town was not bound to pay Employees' retirement group hospitalization and life insurance premiums by virtue of promissory estoppel; and (3) the Town's reduction in benefits did not result in an unconstitutional taking. View "Budge v. Town of Millinocket" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of gross sexual assault and two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal Appellant challenged the trial court's failure to sanction the State for what he asserted was a discovery violation and the court's exclusion of his computer expert from testifying at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court acted well within its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for sanctions; and (2) the court did not exceed its discretion in excluding Appellant's computer expert, given that the delay in supply the expert report to the State was due to Appellant's own failure to pay his expert, the information supplied to the State days before the trial was not complete, and the substantial deference afforded the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. View "State v. Silva" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, aggravated criminal operating under the influence, aggravated leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, and operating under the influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence produced at trial permitted a rational jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the counts in the indictment; and (2) the court did not err in failing to presume prejudice after an attempted jury tampering, failing to issue a curative instruction after an improper comment by the State, and prohibiting Appellant from impeaching a witness with an audio recording of prior inconsistent statements. View "State v. Cheney" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from a judgment entered in the district court terminating her parental rights to her son. Mother argued (1) because she was in law enforcement custody on the morning of the trial, the court violated her due process rights by denying her motion to continue the proceedings; and (2) the district court erred in admitting testimony from one of the officers involved in her arrest because he had not been included in the Department of Health and Human Service's witness list; and (3) the court erred in its factual findings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother was not deprived of due process; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings or commit clear error in its factual findings. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law

Leete & Lemieux (L&L) filed a four-count complaint against Appellant for failure to pay $10,917 for legal services rendered, plus accrued interest. The district court stayed the action until resolution by a panel of the fee arbitration commission upon a motion by Appellant. A fee arbitration panel determined that Appellant owed L&L the full amount of the unpaid fees charged, plus interest. The district court confirmed the award. Appellant appealed, asserting that the panel and the district court erred in declining to consider his claim that the statute of limitations barred L&L's recovery of fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in confirming the arbitration award, as (1) Defendant could have asserted the statute-of-limitations affirmative defense in his request to stay the matter pending arbitration and asked to have had that issue decided by the court prior to arbitration; and (2) therefore, Appellant was estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense at this stage in the proceedings. View "Leete & Lemieux, P.A. v. Horowitz" on Justia Law