Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mother appealed from the district court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s findings that Mother was unable to protect her daughter from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child in a reasonable time were sufficient to allow for appellate review; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s determination that Mother was unable to take responsibility for her daughter and would not be able to do so in a reasonable time; (3) the court did not err by finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unable to protect her daughter from jeopardy and would not be able to do so in a reasonable time; and (4) there was no error or abuse of discretion in the court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Aubrey R." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged by complaint with operating under the influence based in part on an allegation of a blood test measuring 0.15 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the blood test. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the police officer did not obtain a warrant or seek Defendant’s consent, that Defendant did not consent to the blood test, and that there were no exigent circumstances generating an exception to the warrant requirement. The State appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the record did not compel a finding that Defendant objectively manifested consent to the drawing and testing of his blood through his mere acquiescence and cooperation. View "State v. Boyd" on Justia Law

After William Dean was involuntarily hospitalized, the Department of Health and Human Services was appointed as Dean’s temporary public conservator. Thereafter, the Department sold some of Dean’s property. Dean’s sister, Claire Perry, filed a complaint against the Department and certain state individuals, asserting claims arising out of the Department’s management of Dean’s property during the public conservatorship. Later, Pamela Vose was appointed as Dean’s conservator. Vose filed a cross-claim and then a separate action against the Department, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The court consolidated the two cases. The Department and the individual state defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity. The court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on most claims but denied the Department’s motions for summary judgment on Vose’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty in both cases, concluding that the Maine Probate Court waived sovereign immunity and that the Department was subject to suit in tort when acting as a public conservator. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order denying the Department’s motions for summary judgment, holding that the Department is immune from the breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted in these cases because the Probate Code does not expressly waive sovereign immunity and the Department did not waive immunity. View "Perry v. Dean" on Justia Law

In 2015, the three children of Mother and Father came into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. After the Department’s efforts to reunify the family failed due to a combination of the parents’ mental health issues and their choices, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings that the parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that termination was in the best interest of the children. View "In re Gracesun C." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer and theft by deception. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions, and (2) the trial court violated her right to be free from double jeopardy by convicting and sentencing her on both counts of theft without consolidating them. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support both convictions; and (2) the trial court did not err by entering a judgment of conviction on each count of theft or by sentencing Defendant on both counts of theft, and furthermore, there was no violation of Defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy because the convictions and sentences were not based on a single criminal act. View "State v. Hayward" on Justia Law

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a complaint against Terrance Lowell seeking foreclosure on residential property. The complaint alleged that Lowell had defaulted by failing to make payments due on a promissory note. After a bench trial, the district court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of JPMorgan. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the district court properly admitted certain documents pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule; but (2) the district court erred by finding that the notice of default issued by JPMorgan complied with the requirement established in Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 6111(1-A)(C), which is a required element of foreclosure. Remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Lowell. View "JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Lowell" on Justia Law

In 2011, the York County Probate Court appointed Daniel Golodner’s stepmother, Gail Golodner, as the full, permanent guardian of Daniel’s minor daughter, Alisha Golodner. In 2014, Daniel filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. The probate court denied Daniel’s petition after a hearing. Daniel appealed. Thereafter, Gail died. Daniel filed a motion for relief from the probate court’s order asking the Supreme Court to “clarify and settle his status as sole custodian.” The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the portion of the judgment relating to the court’s order regarding guardian ad litem fees as a sanction, and dismissed the appeal in all other respects, as it presented issues that have become moot. The Court further ordered the immediate return of the case file to the probate court with the directive that it take action regarding Alisha’s care. View "In re Guardianship of Alisha K. Golodner" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded unconditionally guilty to a charge of receiving stolen property. The trial court accepted the open plea, which Defendant never moved to withdraw. Defendant appealed. The State moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Defendant cannot take a direct appeal from his plea of guilty absent a challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction or the constitutionality of his punishment. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal because Defendant pleaded guilty unconditionally, did not move to withdraw his plea, and did not contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that it imposed an unconstitutional sentence. View "State v. Stevens" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the State Board of Nursing found that John S. Zablotny had violated his professional duties and revoked his nursing license for two years. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the district court erred in conducting an appellate-type review. On remand, the district court concluded that Zablotny had engaged in activities that constituted professional misconduct but also concluded that the Board failed to prove other allegations of professional misconduct. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings supported the conclusion that the court was not compelled, as a matter of law, to find that Zablotny violated Board rules or professional standards of care. View "Zablotny v. State Board of Nursing" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of gross sexual assault and two counts of unlawful sexual contact. The court sentenced Defendant to twenty years’ imprisonment followed by fifteen years of supervised release. Defendant challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the supervised release sentencing process, mandated by law, violates the due process clause and the double jeopardy clause. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s due process argument actually addresses the length of his total sentence, and the sentence is not constitutionally disproportionate or cruel or unusual punishment; (2) the supervised release sentencing process does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) the supervised release statutory scheme does not abrogate the traditional Hewey analysis. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law