Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

21 Seabran, LLC applied for two permits necessary to renovate a garage on a lakefront parcel. The Town of Naples Code Enforcement Officer denied the permits, concluding that the parcel would have insufficient shore frontage to comply with state and local law. The Town of Naples Board of Appeals denied 21 Seabran’s appeal, concluding that the proposed renovation would add to the parcel a second “residential dwelling unit” for purposes of the Town of Naples Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, which would render the parcel noncompliant. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the Board’s determination that the proposed structure was a residential dwelling unit was erroneous; and (2) the Board’s conclusion that the parcel failed to comply with the minimum lot size law and rules was erroneous. View "21 Seabran, LLC v. Town of Naples" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of, inter alia, intentional or knowing, or depraved indifference murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years in prison for murder and ten years in prison for hindering apprehension or prosecution, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the judgment should be vacated because he was deprived of a fair trial due to the alleged perjured testimony from certain witnesses. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of a fair trial. View "State v. True" on Justia Law

In 2014, Emma’s son successfully petitioned to be appointed as the new conservator of Emma’s estate. Thereafter, the son filed an amended inventory of the estate’s assets. In 2014, Emma’s son, as conservator, moved to have financial details regarding the value of the estate removed from the publicly available docket in the case. The probate court denied the motion. The son filed a motion to reconsider and to amend the judgment. While the court had the matter under consideration, the conservator filed a request for the financial information to be removed from the public docket as an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The probate court then certified a question to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Court discharged the reported question, holding that the question could not be answered consistent with the Court’s basic function as an appellate court and instead sought an advisory opinion on an issue that may be rendered moot by subsequent decision-making. View "In re Conservatorship of Emma" on Justia Law

Philip Barnard was significantly injured when a deck attached to an apartment owed by William Condon collapsed while Barnard was standing on it. Barnard and his wife, Jaime Wilson, filed a complaint against Condon, alleging negligence and seeking damages for, among other things, Wilson’s loss of consortium. Barnard and Wilson divorced during the pendency of the lawsuit. After a trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Barnard on his complaint but awarded no damages on Wilson’s derivative claim for loss of consortium. Wilson appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in denying Wilson’s motion for additur or a new trial on the grounds that the jury’s verdict was manifestly inadequate and internally inconsistent because Wilson failed to meet her burden of demonstrating any of the available grounds for overturning the jury’s verdict. View "Wilson v. Condon" on Justia Law

In 2004, Jason Begin was committed to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services based upon a finding that he was not criminally responsible for certain crimes by reason of insanity. In 2015, Begin filed a petition requesting a hearing on his fitness for release and return to permanent residency in the community. The superior court denied Begin’s request for release. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court was not compelled to find in Begin’s favor on his petition for release. View "State v. Begin" on Justia Law

The district court issued a warrant authorizing officers to search Defendant’s residence. The search resulted in the seizure of container of “Molotov cocktails” and a handgun. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence arguing that the search warrant was tainted by an unlawful initial search relying on an affidavit that failed to supply probable cause that evidence of illegal drug activity would be found at the property. The superior court denied the motion to suppress. Pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, Defendant was convicted of one count of arson and two counts of criminal threatening. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that, because it was objectively unreasonable for an officer to believe the search warrant established probable cause, the court erred in applying the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issuing judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause for the warrant to issue. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful sexual contact. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment with all but fifteen months suspended and eight years of probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by rejecting Defendant’s request for a specific unanimity instruction and that the State made improper statements in its closing argument that, even in the absence of an objection, warranted a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the omission of the specific unanimity instruction was prejudicial to Defendant; and (2) the State made improper comments to the jury during closing argument. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Hanscom" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful trafficking in schedule W drugs. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the State’s closing argument that referred to Defendant’s prior bad acts, and the trial court did not commit reversible error by allowing the State to reference the events at issue without issuing a limiting instruction; (2) the trial court did not commit err in instructing the jury regarding constructive possession and accomplice liability; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The district court terminated Mother’s rights to her daughter after police discovered that Mother had taken a series of “shocking, graphic, and abusive photographs” of her daughter. In addition, Mother declined to participate in reunifying with her daughter. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. Mother moved for relief from judgment, alleging that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Mother failed to meet her burden of proving that counsel was ineffective. Further, the Court took this opportunity to clarify the emerging process for post-judgment review of judgments terminating parental rights. View "In re Alexandria C." on Justia Law

Barnie’s Bar & Grill, Inc. held an insurance policy by the United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC) when Barnie’s was sued for negligence in connection with one man’s attack by a group of other patrons of the bar. USLIC declined to defend Barnie’s in the litigation, relying on the policy’s exclusions for assault and battery. Barnie’s sued USLIC in superior court seeking a declaratory judgment that USLIC had a duty to defend it and seeking damages for breach of contract. The superior court granted summary judgment for USLIC, concluding that USLIC had no contractual duty to defend Barnie’s. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that USLIC was not obligated to defend Barnie’s in the underlying litigation because the allegations of the underlying complaint fell squarely within the policy’s exclusions for assault and battery. View "Barnie's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. United States Liability Insurance Company" on Justia Law