Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In a divorce judgment, the district court awarded Mother the right to provide the parties’ minor child’s primary residence. Mother moved to modify the terms of the divorce judgment and later moved to enforce the divorce judgment. The court denied Mother’s motion to enforce the divorce but did modify the terms of the divorce judgment. Mother appealed, arguing that the court erred in interpreting the divorce judgment concerning her authority to take the child on an annual trip to Brazil and violated her fundamental right to parent by modifying the divorce judgment to award the parental grandparents contact with the child. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) because the divorce judgment unambiguously provided for the child’s annual travel to Brazil, the denial of the motion to enforce the judgment and the court’s modification of that provision were error; and (2) before a court may grant a third party contact with a child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A 1653(2)(B), the third party must file both a motion to intervene in the matter and his or her own motion seeking such contact, and these requirements were not met as to the paternal grandparents in this case. Remanded. View "Curtis v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

The district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his child, determining that Father was parentally unfit within the meaning of the child protection statutes and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Father appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s determinations. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence supported the court’s ultimate finding of parental unfitness; and (2) given the evidence in the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Carlos C." on Justia Law

Friends of the Motherhouse, a nonprofit corporation and two individuals (collectively, Friends) filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Portland City Council’s rezoning of a parcel owned by Sea Coast at Baxter Woods Associates, LLC and Motherhouse Associates LP (collectively, Sea Coast) was invalid. Sea Coast successfully moved to intervene and then moved for summary judgment. The superior court granted summary judgment for Sea Coast. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Council acted within its broad legislative authority, and therefore, the superior court did not err in finding that Sea Coast was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Friends of the Motherhouse v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

Melody Boulette and Richard Boulette were divorced pursuant to a judgment that granted the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared residence with respect to their two sons. Richard subsequently moved to modify the divorce judgment, seeking primary residence of the children. While that motion was pending, Melody sought and received a temporary protection from abuse order. The district court subsequently entered a final protection from abuse order barring Richard from having contact with Melody or the children subject to a future family court action. Thereafter, following a hearing, the district court issued an amended protection from abuse order that reinstated the contact schedule created by the parties’ divorce judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) dismissed Richard’s appeal of the temporary protection from abuse order and the final protection from abuse order, as these appeals were untimely; and (2) affirmed the judgment amending the final protection from abuse order. View "Boulette v. Boulette" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of gross sexual assault, one count of unlawful sexual contact, and one count of visual sexual aggression against a child. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it admitted testimony of the victim’s aunt and grandmother concerning the victim’s state of mind. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the victim’s aunt and grandmother to testify about the victim’s out-of-court statements describing her then-existing state of mind. View "State v. Watson" on Justia Law

Arundel Valley, LLC, the developer of a facility for a butter manufacturer, filed a complaint against Branch River Plastics, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of insulated roofing panels, alleging, inter alia, defects in roofing panels that Branch River had manufactured and supplied to Arundel Valley for a construction project. A jury found in Arundel Valley’s favor on its claims that Branch River breached implied warranties by supplying defective roofing panels. Branch River filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in declining to adjudicate whether Branch River had disclaimed implied warranties. Remanded. View "Arundel Valley, LLC v. Branch River Plastics, Inc." on Justia Law