Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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