Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After the trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence derived from internet service provider (ISP) records that the State obtained with a grand jury subpoena, Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of possession of sexually explicit materials. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State was required to use the procedure set forth in Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 200-B to obtain the ISP records and that its failure to do so violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 200-B creates an alternative, not exclusive, method for it to use in seeking ISP records, and therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that the State was not barred from using a grand jury subpoena in obtaining the ISP records. View "State v. Bragdon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault on an officer, violation of a protective order, and refusing to submit to arrest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the superior court did not err or abuse its discretion by (1) allowing testimony about the violent details of a prior unrelated incident; and (2) denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after the State made certain improper remarks in its opening statement, as any prejudice resulting from the prosecutor’s improper remarks was adequately remedied by the court’s response. View "State v. Begin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several counts of unlawful sexual contact, criminal attempt, visual sexual aggression against a child, sexual misconduct with a child under twelve, and unlawful sexual touching. Defendant appealed, arguing that the superior court erred in admitting and excluding various pieces of evidence and in denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission of approximately forty specific statements from each of the State’s witnesses’ testimony was not obvious error; and (2) Defendant’s remaining contentions were similarly without merit. View "State v. Vultee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured while working at a paper mill. Plaintiff hired Defendant, an attorney, to represent her in her workers’ compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded Plaintiff, still represented by Defendant, partial incapacity benefits. Plaintiff later settled with her employer. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that, due to Defendant’s failure to exercise due care and negligence, she was awarded partial incapacity benefits rather than total incapacity benefits. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was correctly granted where the jury could not assess damages without resorting to speculation. View "Allen v. McCann" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were divorced by a judgment entered in 2006. Mother was awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary residence of the parties' three children. Father subsequently filed several motions to modify parental rights and responsibilities, and both parties filed motions for contempt. As of 2010, the parties were subject to a court order giving them “parallel, but not fully shared” parental rights and responsibilities. In 2013, Father requested primary residence of the three children and child support. Mother filed two motions for contempt, alleging that Father had violated the contact provisions of the 2010 order. One week before the scheduled hearing on the motions, Father filed a motion for recusal and transfer. The court ultimately denied the motion. As to the remaining motions, the court denied Father’s motion to modify and granted Mother’s motions for contempt. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to recuse, in excluding the testimony of the parties’ two younger children, and in its ultimate allocation of parental rights and responsibilities or its award of attorney fees. View "Robertson v. Gerakaris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the Class C charge of sexual abuse of a minor. On appeal, Defendant challenged the admission of testimony of the victim’s mother indicating when the victim told her what had happened and argued that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing arguments. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly applied the “first complaint” rule in determining that the mother’s statement was admissible; and (2) any error in the prosecutor’s closing arguments, either individually or cumulatively, did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Fahnley" on Justia Law

John Boddy and Amy Dickens were divorced by a judgment that awarded Dickens primary residence of the parties’ child and required Boddy to pay weekly child support. Boddy later filed a second motion to modify requesting that the district court declare that the parties were currently providing substantially equal care for the child and provide for shared residence between the parties. The district court granted Boddy’s motion to modify in part by modifying Boddy’s child support obligation to reflect his changed employment status but denying his requests to recognize substantially equal care and provide for shared residency. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) finding that Boddy was not providing substantially equal care to his child and in failing to adjust his child support obligation accordingly; and (2) finding no substantial change in circumstances sufficient to modify the child’s residency. View "Dickens v. Boddy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Bruce, Cynthia, and Rodney Pooler seeing to establish the locations of common boundaries among three properties. The parties settled their claims, and the superior court entered a consent order resolving Plaintiff’s right to access South Crane Lane by requiring the Poolers to grant Plaintiff an easement over their driveway. Plaintiff later filed a post-judgment motion for contempt against Ricky and Monica Conant as Rodney Pooler’s successors-in-interest, alleging that they were in contempt of the consent order by blocking Plaintiff’s access to their driveway. The court denied the motion for contempt, finding that the consent order did not recognize an easement over the Conants’ lot. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) vacated the judgment as to the determination that Plaintiff did not have a deeded easement, as the contempt motion did not call for the court to determine separately whether Plaintiff had a deeded easement; and (2) otherwise affirmed the denial of the motion for contempt, holding that the court did not err in concluding that any right that Plaintiff had to use the Conants’ driveway did not flow from the consent order. View "Beckerman v. Pooler" on Justia Law

After a contested hearing, the district court entered a jeopardy order finding that Father had exposed K.M., his child, to verbally violent confrontations and that Father’s unstable mental health placed K.M. at risk of harm. The Department of Health and Human Services subsequently filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. Almost two years later, the court entered an order granting the Department’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained support for the court’s finding that Father was unable to protect K.M. from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time that would need the child’s needs, and the record contained support for the court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re K.M." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of gross sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to preserve a recording of a police interview of the victim and by the twenty-two-year delay between the alleged assaults and the indictment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the missing recording did not have any apparent exculpatory value at the time it was lost, and Defendant did not prove the elements necessary to establish a violation of his constitutional rights due to the State’s loss of evidence, and therefore, Defendant did not prove the elements necessary to establish a violation of his constitutional rights due to the loss of the evidence; and (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that he was prejudiced by the pre-indictment delay. View "State v. Cote" on Justia Law