Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the Class B charge of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made during an interrogation. Specifically, Defendant argued that his statements made during the custodial interrogation must be suppressed because law enforcement did not specifically advise him that he had the right to the presence of counsel during questioning. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Defendant was adequately advised of his constitutional right to counsel and that he effectively waived the privilege against self-incrimination, rendering his statements admissible against him at trial. View "State v. Figueroa" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional or knowing murder and depraved indifference murder. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) the trial court did not err by concluding that Defendant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was not guilty by reason of insanity; (3) the trial court did not err by not considering the “lesser included” offense of manslaughter; and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of Defendant’s allegedly improved psychological state. View "State v. Jeskey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of assault. Defendant appealed, asserting that the superior court committed prejudicial error by failing to give his proposed jury instructions on eyewitness identification. The court did give an instruction on eyewitness identification but did not give Defendant’s proposed instructions verbatim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury instructions that the trial court gave were a correct statement of the law; (2) the requested instruction was not generated by the evidence; and (3) the requested instruction was sufficiently covered by the instructions given. View "State v. Mahmoud" on Justia Law

As a result of a partial revaluation of parcels of land located within the Town of Scarborough, including land owned by Plaintiffs, the municipal assessment of the parcels of land increased. Plaintiffs sought abatements from the Town assessor and the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review without success. Plaintiffs appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that they bore an unequal share of the Town’s overall tax burden. The Business and Consumer Docket concluded that Plaintiffs did not have standing to seek remedial relief because Plaintiffs’ properties were not treated differently than the properties of other taxpayers. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the Town’s method of assessing separate but abutting parcels held in common ownership resulted in unequal apportionment, and the Board erred in concluding that the unlawful practice did not result in discriminatory assessments of Plaintiffs’ properties; and (2) therefore, Plaintiffs had standing to pursue all of their challenges. Remanded. View "Petrin v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law

In 2005, Cecile Poulin, then approximately eighty-five years old, asked her nephew, Paul Gagnon, to assist her with her financial affairs. In 2011, Poulin signed a durable power of attorney appointing Gagnon as her agent. In 2012, Gagnon died. In 2013, Poulin filed a claim against Gagnon’s Estate, alleging unauthorized withdrawal of funds, fraud, undue influence, and breach of fiduciary duty. After an evidentiary hearing, the probate court concluded that Gagnon had misappropriated Poulin’s funds and was not acting pursuant to the authority granted to him by the power of attorney. The court denied Poulin’s motion for attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment; (2) there was no error in the court’s award of damages; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Poulin an award of attorney fees. View "In re Estate of Gagnon" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife had been married for about seventeen years when Wife filed a complaint for divorce. After a trial, the district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable marital differences. Husband appealed, challenging the court’s division of the marital property. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its consideration of the factors required by Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 19-A 953(1)-(3); (2) did not clearly err in its findings of fact; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate. View "Hutt v. Hanson" on Justia Law

After learning of allegations of inappropriate and unwanted physical contact by Mark Langlais against Marviline Luneau in Luneau’s nursing home, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition for ex parte appointment of a public guardian. After a hearing, the probate court adjudicated Luneau incapacitated and appointed the Department Luneau’s temporary and permanent public guardian. Langlais appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the probate court found that Langlais was unsuitable to serve as Luneau’s guardian, the court did not err by declining to appoint Langlais as Luneau’s guardian. View "In re Guardianship of Luneau" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple drug offenses. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the suppression court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment pursuant to a search warrant, as there was a substantial basis for the finding of probable cause to issue the search warrant; (2) the suppression court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress a statement he made in the interview room at the police department before receiving Miranda warnings, as Defendant was not subject to interrogation at the time he made his statement; and (3) the evidence of drug quantity at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for aggravating trafficking of heroin. View "State v. Arbour" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children. The parents appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother’s and Father’s arguments that the court erred in faulting them for their failures to fulfill adequately the requirements of their reunification plans failed because they did not have support in the record and were based on a misapprehension of the district court’s reasoning; and (2) the record supported the court’s findings of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the best interest of the children. View "In re Magdalena F." on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of the Maine Public Employees Retirement System affirmed an administrative determination that Appellant was ineligible for disability retirement benefits. Appellant later filed an incomplete petition for review of final agency action in the superior court. The complete petition was required to be filed on or before April 7. Appellant did not file a complete petition under April 15. The superior court dismissed as untimely Appellant’s petition for review of the Board’s decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in dismissing the petition as untimely or in denying Appellant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. View "Bastille v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law