Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of the crime of escape from arrest. Defendant was sentenced to fourteen days in jail. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was “arrested” before she fled the custody of a police officer by climbing out the bedroom window of her boyfriend’s home. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Defendant committed the crime of escape from arrest because there was sufficient evidence to prove she was under arrest before she fled out the bedroom window. View "State v. Dorweiler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of her child, filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Defendant, a neighbor, on behalf of Defendant’s child. After a hearing, the district court entered a protection order, finding that Defendant’s child presented a firearm-related credible threat to the safety of Plaintiff’s child. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court remanded the case for entry of a second amended order that does not include the credible threat finding, holding that the district court’s finding that Defendant’s child poses a firearm-related credible threat to the safety of Plaintiff’s child was in error. View "Seger v. Nason" on Justia Law

Fryeburg Water Company (FWC) sought approval from the Public Utilities Commission to execute an agreement with Nestle Waters North America, Inc. (NWNA) providing for the lease of premises and purchase of water from FWC. After an adjudicatory proceeding concerning the request, the Commission conditionally approved the proposed agreement. Bruce Taylor and Food & Water Watch appealed, challenging the Commission’s procedural decisions and the Commission’s ultimate approval of the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion or violation of a statutory or constitutional provision in the Commission’s decision approving FWC’s proposed agreement with NWNA. View "Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n" on Justia Law

The shareholders of Sheepscot Island Company approved a plan to convert a for-profit corporation into a nonprofit corporation. Some dissenting shareholders (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the nonprofit conversion plan should be invalidated because it failed to reclassify all shares of the corporation equally. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly applied the law governing corporations and nonprofit corporations. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that no law prohibits a business corporation’s nonprofit conversion plan from reclassifying the corporation’s shares into membership classes with disparate rights. View "Andrews v. Sheepscot Island Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to theft by deception and aggravated forgery. Defendant’s crimes arose from her wrongful procurement of public benefits through material misrepresentations. Defendant was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay restitution to the Department of Health and Human Services in the amount of $15,224. Defendant appealed, challenging the sentencing court’s finding that Defendant was not incapable of paying the ordered restitution. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because Defendant challenged only the propriety, and not the legality, of the sentence of restitution, the appeal must be dismissed for failure to raise any illegality that was apparent on the face of the record. View "State v. Davenport" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of theft by deception for submitting hundreds of fraudulent claims to MaineCare, totaling more than $40,000. After a sentencing hearing, the sentencing court sentenced Defendant to four years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $20,000 in restitution. Defendant appealed, challenging the propriety of his sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the sentencing court did not err in finding that Defendant was not incapable of paying the ordered restitution; and (2) the court’s decision to order $20,000 in restitution was not arbitrary, and therefore, there was no violation of Defendant’s right to due process of law. View "State v. Bradley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal operating under the influence (OUI), with one prior conviction (Class D). Defendant was sentenced to forty-five days in jail, a $700 fine, and a three-year license suspension. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of OUI. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence, which included the results of a blood alcohol level test provided by Defendant following a car crash, was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find each element of OUI beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Parkin" on Justia Law

Mother, who had been awarded sole parental rights and the right to provide Child’s primary residence, petitioned to adopt Child and to terminate the parental rights of Father. After a final hearing, the probate court denied Mother’s petitions. Although the court found that Father had abandoned Child, it concluded that Mother had not proved that it was in Child’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights because Mother, who was receiving state benefits, had insufficient funds to provide for Child, and Child would benefit from support payments from Father. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the probate court erred in considering the State’s financial interest as a factor in its determination of Child’s best interest. View "In re Adoption of Liam O." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea to the charge of operating under the influence with two prior convictions for operating under the influence. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a stop of his vehicle. The trial court concluded that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the arresting officer had an objectively reasonable belief that Defendant had violated Me. Rev. Stat. 29-A, which prohibits braking or accelerating that is “unnecessarily made so as to cause a harsh and objectionable noise.” The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. View "State v. Violette" on Justia Law

Steven Lake murdered his wife, Amy, and their two children before committing suicide. George Lake, Steven’s father, was appointed as the personal representative of Steven’s Estate (“the Estate”). Thereafter, Ralph Bagley, Amy’s father and a personal representative of Amy’s estate, filed a creditors’ claim against the Estate, anticipating a wrongful death action on behalf of Amy’s estate against the Estate. Bagley then filed a demand for bond seeking a bond in the amount of $150,000. Nearly two years later, Bagley filed a petition to remove George as the personal representative, alleging that he should be removed because he failed to obtain a bond despite the earlier petition. The court entered an order requiring George to submit a personal surety bond in the amount of $75,000 within thirty days and denied Bagley’s petition for removal. Bagley subsequently filed a motion for contempt against George for failing to timely obtain the bond. The probate court granted the petition, removed George from his position as representative of the Estate, and awarded attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the probate court erred in proceeding on the motion for contempt because the motion did not satisfy the requirements of Me. R. Civ. P. 66. View "In re Estate of Steven L. Lake" on Justia Law