Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Christine Violette filed a complaint for divorce from Randy Violette. The district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment that mandated specific disciplinary measures and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err in calculating Randy’s income and by relying on that finding in its child support and spousal support awards; (2) did not abuse its discretion in its spousal support award; (3) did not clearly err in finding that two assets - a piece of real estate and a business - were wholly nonmarital; but (4) abused its discretion when it ordered the parties to discipline their children in a specific and inflexible fashion upon the occurrence of particular events with no discretion left to the parents. View "Violette v. Violette" on Justia Law

Christine Violette filed a complaint for divorce from Randy Violette. The district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment that mandated specific disciplinary measures and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err in calculating Randy’s income and by relying on that finding in its child support and spousal support awards; (2) did not abuse its discretion in its spousal support award; (3) did not clearly err in finding that two assets - a piece of real estate and a business - were wholly nonmarital; but (4) abused its discretion when it ordered the parties to discipline their children in a specific and inflexible fashion upon the occurrence of particular events with no discretion left to the parents. View "Violette v. Violette" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of tampering with a juror and violating a condition of release. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years in prison. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) defining the term “juror” in the jury instructions; and (3) allowing lay witnesses to testify about whether they thought Defendant was trying to influence them by holding up sign in view of twenty-five to thirty potential jurors before crumpling up the piece of paper and discarding it. View "State v. Solomon" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition seeking a general public guardianship over Colleen McIntosh, alleging that McIntosh’s diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia rendered her incapacitated. After a hearing, the county probate court appointed the Department as general public guardian for McIntosh based on its findings that McIntosh was incapacitated and in need of a full guardianship until her condition became adequately controlled and that there was no suitable private person available to fulfill that need. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was ample evidence supporting a finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, of each of the elements necessary for issuance of an order appointing the Department as McIntosh’s public guardian. View "In re Guardianship of McIntosh" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition for child protection regarding L.T. alleging that Father created jeopardy through neglect, emotional abuse, and physical abuse. The Father and the Department agreed to the entry of a jeopardy order as to Father. Father was later incarcerated, during which time the Department petitioned to terminate Father’s rights to the child based largely on the factual allegations included in the jeopardy order. After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s rights to the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had sufficient evidence before it to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory grounds for parental termination; and (2) Father’s remaining allegations of error were without merit. View "In re L.T." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother to her child, I.R. After a hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to I.R., finding that Mother was unable or unwilling to protect the child from jeopardy, was unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the child within a reasonable time, and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of parental unfitness; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that termination was in the best interest of the child. View "In re I.R." on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of unlawfully trafficking in scheduled drugs and one count of illegal importation of scheduled drugs. Defendant filed a motion to suppress as evidence illegal drugs seized from him by law enforcement officers after they stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the warrantless search of the clothes Defendant was wearing exceeded the bounds of a valid protective search or justifiable search for contraband. The Supreme Court vacated the suppression order, holding that the search was justified by probable cause and the existence of exigent circumstances, and therefore, the search was constitutional. Remanded. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

G.F., a juvenile, was adjudicated to have committed an assault. The district court committed G.F., who was thirteen years old at the time, to the Department of Corrections Mountain View Youth Development Center for an indeterminate period up to age seventeen. The superior court affirmed the district court’s judgment. G.F. appealed, arguing that the disposition was disproportionate to the assault adjudication and not rationally related to the purposes of the Maine Juvenile Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the statutes do not authorize the Court to review a disposition. View "State v. G.F." on Justia Law

In 2012, Jennifer Young filed a complaint for divorce from Michael Young. After a hearing, the district court entered a divorce judgment that granted Jennifer sole parental rights and responsibilities for the children, awarded Jennifer child support arrearages, divided the martial property, set aside Michael’s retirement account to Jennifer in lieu of spousal support, and ordered Michael to pay Jennifer’s attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) vacated the judgment as to (i) the retirement account because the court failed adequately to explain this aspect of the property division, (ii) the distribution of all tangible marital personal property because of several discrete errors affecting the court’s analysis, and (iii) attorney fees; (2) affirmed the child support arrearage as corrected; and (3) affirmed in all other respects. View "Young v. Young" on Justia Law

In 1989, Appellant was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. In 2008, Appellant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Maine’s amended DNA analysis statute. After a hearing, the superior court denied Appellant’s motion for a new trial, concluding that Appellant had not met his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that a new trial would probably result in a different verdict. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err or abuse its discretion in (1) finding that Appellant failed to prove that the new DNA evidence admitted at the hearing, when considered with all the other evidence in the case, both old and new, would make it probable that a different verdict would result from a new trial; (2) limiting the evidence that Appellant could present at the hearing to evidence concerning the new DNA testing and analysis; and (3) denying Appellant’s motion to recuse. View "State v. Dechaine" on Justia Law