Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Grandmother filed a petition requesting that she be appointed the temporary guardian of Child. The probate court granted a temporary limited guardianship, concluding that Mother was temporarily unfit to parent. Grandmother subsequently petitioned for permanent guardianship of Child on grounds of an intolerable living situation. The probate court denied the petition, concluding that Mother was currently fit to parent Child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the probate court applied the correct legal test according to the correct standard of proof in evaluating with Mother was a fit parent and in determining whether the award of guardianship was in the best interest of Child. View "In re Guardianship of Gionest" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to operating under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the suppression court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a stop of his vehicle and after his subsequent arrest and Intoxilyzer test. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that the traffic stop was based on reasonable articulable suspicion; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish that the law enforcement officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant and subject him to an Intoxilyzer test. View "State v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Richard French was the owner of an undeveloped lot with no road access. When the Estate of Martha Gutzan denied French use of an access easement across property owned by the Estate, French brought this action to quiet title. After a nonjury trial, the trial court concluded that French owned an access easement over the Estate’s property. Specifically, the court found that an 1880 transaction reserved the easement in question and that the easement passed with the land to French. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that French owned an access easement across the Estate’s property. View "French v. Estate of Gutzan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged three City of Saco decisions issued in connection with the construction of a car dealership by WWS Properties, LLC. Specifically at issue were (1) the City Planning Board’s and the Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA) conclusions that each lacked jurisdiction to review the City Planner’s grant of an amendment to WWS’s approved site plan, and (2) the ZBA’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s appeal of the certificate of occupancy issued to WWS. The superior court affirmed the decisions of the Planning Board and ZBA. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Plaintiff’s appeal of the City Planner’s approval of the site plan amendment was properly before the Planning Board, and therefore, the Planning Board erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction; and (2) the ZBA had jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s appeal of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and the ZBA erred in refusing to exercise that jurisdiction. Remanded. View "Desfosses v. City of Saco" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of operating under the influence. Defendant was sentenced to four days in jail, an $800 fine, and a ninety-day license suspension. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because no rational jury could find that he operated or attempted to operate his vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as a rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant, while impaired, either drove his car to its resting place or attempted to drive his car after a law enforcement officer woke him up. View "State v. Belhumeur" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the theft conviction; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence several emails between Defendant and representatives of the named victims; (3) no advice-of-counsel instruction should have been given, and any error in the actual instruction given was harmless; (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars; and (5) the indictment in this case was not duplicitous and was properly charged. View "State v. Flynn" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of crimes stemming from his alleged illegal possession of digital images and videos depicting the sexual assault or exploitation of children. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions for two counts of possession of sexually explicit material. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given the evidence presented at trial, and applying the plain meaning of the statute in effect at the time of the crimes, the trial court’s findings were supported by competent evidence in the record, and the facts supported the court’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal operating under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of his roadside interactions with a game warden from the moment the game warden parked his marked patrol vehicle behind Defendant’s stopped truck, exited the vehicle, and said, “Hi. Game warden.” The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the warden did not effect a Terry stop, and therefore, Defendant was not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment prior to the moment the warden observed signs of Defendant’s intoxication. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that Defendant was not seized at any time before the warden observed signs of Defendant’s intoxication. View "State v. Ciomei" on Justia Law

In 2009, Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a stipulated judgment that awarded Mother primary residence of the parties’ minor children. Father later moved to modify the divorce judgment, alleging that Mother was cohabiting with a man (Stepfather) that exposed the children to a person who abused alcohol. In 2014, the court granted Husband the right to provide the children’s primary residence and prohibited Mother from allowing any unsupervised contact between the children and Stepfather. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings were sufficient to support the court’s determination that the children’s best interests would be served by changing their primary residence from Mother’s home to Father’s. View "Aranovitch v. Versel" on Justia Law

In 2011, Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure complaint against Jeffrey White. In 2014, based on an agreed-to judgment by the parties, the court entered a final judgment of foreclosure. Thereafter, White moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (4), alleging that Wells Fargo lacked standing to foreclose and that Wells Fargo’s failure to establish standing deprived the court of jurisdiction, rendering the judgment void. The district court denied White’s motion, finding that White was not entitled to relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief pursuant to either Rule 60(b)(1) or (4), as (1) the parties had not been mistaken about the facts or the law regarding standing when they agreed to the entry of judgment; and (2) Plaintiff had a fair opportunity and a significant incentive to challenge Wells Fargo’s standing but failed to do so. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. White" on Justia Law