Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts of gross sexual assault and six counts of unlawful sexual contact. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of inculpatory statements he made during a police interview. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that the totality of the circumstances rendered Defendant’s incriminating statements involuntary as a matter of law, and therefore, the suppression court erred when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence of those incriminating statements. Remanded for a new trial. View "Maine v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with terrorizing and criminal restraint with a dangerous weapon. Petitioner was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and committed to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services. A decade later, Petitioner filed a petition for discharge from custody. The superior court denied the petition for discharge after a hearing, finding that Petitioner remained afflicted with a mental disease or defect that rendered her dangerous to herself, to others, and to property. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err by denying Petitioner’s petition for discharge because the evidence did not compel a finding that Petitioner may be discharged without likelihood that she will cause injury to herself or others due to a mental disease or defect. View "Beal v. State" on Justia Law

Bangor Hydro-Electric (BHE) and Maine Public Service Company (MPS) were regulated utilities engaged in the transmission and distribution of electric it. The companies merged to become Emera Maine during the pendency of this proceeding. BHE and MPS filed a petition for reorganization, under which Emera Maine’s parent company would increase its ownership interest in Algonquin Power & Utilities Corporation (APUC), a publicly-traded company that is in the electricity generation business. The petition was subject to approval by the Maine Public Utilities Commission because of the relationship that would result between Emera Maine, as a transmission and distribution entity, and APUC, a generator. The Commission approved the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Commission’s order approving the petition, holding that the Commission misconstrued the governing statute in the Electric Industry Restructuring Act. On remand, the Commission once again approved the petition. On the second appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Commission’s order, holding that the Commission acted outside of its authority when it imposed conditions that would regulate APUC beyond what the Restructuring Act allows. Remanded with instructions to deny the petition. View "Houlton Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

James Levis filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and quiet title claiming title to a section of mudflat by adverse possession and by deed from his ex-wife. Levis named Gustav Konitzky, an abutting neighbor and boat-builder, as a party in interest. Default judgment was entered against the remaining defendants (the Cartland heirs), but the district court later set aside the default judgment. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of Konitzky. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment against the Cartland heirs and did not err in granting summary judgment in Konitzky’s favor on Levis’s quiet title action. View "Levis v. Konitzky" on Justia Law

Harris Management and JJR Associates filed a complaint against Paul Coulombe and two LLCs under his control (collectively, Defendants), alleging seven causes of action arising from allegations that Coulombe had misrepresented his commitment to hire Harris Management to manage a golf course, which Coulombe was preparing to purchase, in an effort to obtain nearby property from JJR Associates at a discount and to prevent Harris from purchasing the golf club. During discovery, the court entered an order providing that Coulombe must permit Harris to discover the communications among Coulombe, his counsel, and a third party, concluding that those communications were either not subject to the attorney-client privilege or were discoverable because the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment except with respect to one communication that the Court concluded the trial court must consider further on remand, holding that, with the exception of those pages, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the release of specific communications between Coulombe and his attorneys. View "Harris Management, Inc. v. Coulombe" on Justia Law

BCN Telecom, Inc. was assessed a state service provider tax on certain flat charges that BCN imposed on some business customers’ lines from 2008 to 2011. The charges were designed both to reimburse BCN for presubscribed interexchange carrier charges that it paid to access local telephone infrastructure and to generate profits. The Sales and Use Tax Division of Maine Revenue Services affirmed the assessment. The Maine Board of Tax Appeals affirmed. On judicial review, the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of BCN, concluding that BCN’s charges were not part of the “sale price” of telecommunications service and that, even if they were, they were exempt from taxation under Me. Rev. Stat. 36, 2557(34) because they were charges for interstate telecommunications services. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment entered by the superior court, holding (1) the amounts received by BCN were subject to the service provider tax as part of the sale price for telecommunications services; and (2) BCN failed to provide prima facie proof that the tax exemption for interstate telecommunications services applied as a matter of law to these charges. View "BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained during his detention and arrest, arguing that the detention was not supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct justifying the officer’s detention of Defendant. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of operating under the influence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing to warrant the detention of Defendant. View "State v. Gerry" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court court terminated both Mother’s and Father’s rights to their four minor children. Mother and Father both appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in entering a judgment terminating the parents’ right because the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of unfitness as to each parent and that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. View "In re Cameron Z." on Justia Law

Jon and Winifred Prime brought suit against Dawn Harlor stemming from a dispute over the Primes’ right to use a dock according to an easement Harlor had granted the the Primes. At all relevant times, Harlor was insured by Amica Mutual Insurance Company under a homeowner’s insurance policy providing that Amica would defend Harlor against claims that may result in covered damages. Amica denied Harlor’s request that Amica provide a defense in the underlying suit based on its conclusion that the suit could not result in covered damages. After Harlor settled the suit with the Primes, Harlor brought suit against Amica alleging that Amica breached the policy by failing to defend her in the underlying lawsuit. The superior court granted summary judgment for Amica, concluding that any damages that might have resulted from the underlying suit would not be covered by Harlor’s policies and, therefore, did not give rise to a duty to defend. The Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for the entry of summary judgment in favor of Harlor, holding that Amica breached its duty to defend. Remanded for further proceedings regarding Amica’s duty to indemnify Harlor for any or all of the amount that she paid to settle the underlying action. View "Harlor v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, Wife instituted divorce proceedings against Husband on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The district court divided the parties’ assets and debts, awarded Wife spousal support, and denied Wife’s requests for retroactive interim support and attorney fees. Thereafter, Wife filed a motion purporting to request further findings of fact and conclusions of law, a new trial, and alteration or amendment of the judgment. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Wife’s motion did not comply with the requirements of Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b), and therefore, the court did not err by denying relief. View "Eremita v. Marchiori" on Justia Law