Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary and theft by unauthorized taking or transfer. Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months’ confinement on the burglary charge and a concurrent six-month sentence on the theft charge. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a witness to testify regarding the witness’s previous identification of Defendant in a now-unavailable surveillance video recording because the video was of poor quality and that the witness’s identification testimony was speculative and unreliable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s admission of the testimony was not an abuse of discretion, nor was it so unfairly prejudicial as to virtually deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Marc Chamberlain was the father of two children who had been the care of their maternal grandmother for several years before and following the death of their mother. The children’s maternal grandmother and their maternal aunt petitioned the probate court for appointment as the children’s co-guardians. Chamberlain opposed the petition. The court entered a judgment appointing the grandmother, but not the aunt, as the children’s guardian. In making its decision, the court applied the plain language of Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 5-204(d) and found by a preponderance of the evidence that the grandmother was the children’s de facto guardian and that Chamberlain had not consistently participated in the children’s lives. Chamberlain appealed, arguing that section 5-204(d) is facially unconstitutional because it, and the statutes defining its terms, are unconstitutionally vague and violate due process. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the appointment of a guardian over a parent’s objection upon proof by the lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence violates the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution. Remanded for the court to apply the constitutionally required standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence when applying section 5-204(d). View "In re Guardianship of Chamberlain" on Justia Law

During a party hosted by Delta Tau Delta’s (DTD) Gamma Nu chapter at its DTD fraternity house located on the University of Maine’s Orono campus, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Joshua Clukey and prevented from leaving his room for several minutes. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against DTD and Delta Tau Delta National Housing Corporation (DTDNHC), alleging vicarious liability, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability. The trial court granted DTD and DTDNHC’s motion to dismiss with respect to the issue of vicarious liability and then granted summary judgment for DTD and DTDNHC on Plaintiff’s remaining claims, concluding that DTD and DTDNHC did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed dismissal of the vicarious liability claims; (2) vacated summary judgment in favor of DTD on the premises liability claim, holding that DTD had a duty to exercise reasonable care and take reasonable steps to provide premises that are reasonably safe and reasonably free from potential sexual misconduct by its members for all social invitees to chapter-sponsored events; and (3) affirmed summary judgment on the remaining counts. Remanded. View "Brown v. Delta Tau Delta" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to thirty-eight years’ incarceration and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,261. Defendant appealed from his judgment of conviction and applied to the Sentence Review Panel for the right to appeal his sentence to the Supreme Court. The Panel granted the application, but Defendant’s attorney for the appeals did not brief the sentencing issue. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction without mentioning the sentence appeal. Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction review, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on the sentence appeal. The trial court granted the petition and ordered that Defendant’s right to seek review of his sentence be reinstated. The Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion to reinstate his sentence appeal and affirmed the sentence, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate any error in the court’s sentencing. View "State v. Butsitsi" on Justia Law