Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Town of Starks Planning Board approved an application for site plan approval to build and operate a cellular telephone tower in Starks. Harry and Cindy Brown appealed the decision. The Town of Starks Board of Appeals (SBA) denied the Browns’ appeal after determining that it was limited to reviewing the Planning Board’s decision in an appellate capacity. The Browns appealed the SBA’s decision to the superior court, arguing for the first time that the SBA should have reviewed the Planning Board’s decision de novo. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the Browns failed to challenge the SBA’s standard of review determination at the municipal level, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. View "Brown v. Town of Starks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of theft by receiving stolen property. The superior court sentenced Defendant to fourteen days in fail and a $500 fine. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed and in violation of his equal protection and due process rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) Defendant's sentence was not illegal because it fell within the lower range of the lowest quadrant of the incarceration time authorized by the Legislature for a Class D crime; (2) Defendant’s equal protection claim failed because he did not surpass the threshold requirement of proving that similarly situated individuals are not treated equally; and (3) Defendant’s sentence did not violate his right to due process where the sentence was based on factually reliable information and the court did not deprive Defendant of his opportunity to refute the information relied upon at sentencing. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers in the hours following the murder because he was in a state of intoxication and emotional distress at the time that rendered his statements involuntary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in determining that Defendant’s statements to law enforcement were the free choice of a rational mind, were fundamentally fair, and were not a product of coercive police conduct. View "State v. Kierstead" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee at the Maine Bureau of Insurance, an agency within the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation (Department), sued the Department, alleging that she was fired in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA). The superior court entered judgment in favor of the Department. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Department on the ground that Plaintiff did not engage in activity protected by the WPA; and (2) therefore, the Court need not address Plaintiff’s arguments on pretext or adverse employment action. View "Galouch v. Dep’t of Prof’l and Fin. Regulation" on Justia Law

In anticipation of renting an apartment from Sheldon Ashby, Jennifer Roussel gave Ashby a security deposit. Roussel never moved into the apartment and sought the return of her security deposit. When Ashby did not respond to Roussel’s demand for a refund, Roussel filed a complaint against Ashby. The superior court entered default against Ashby and entered judgment for Roussel in the amount of $24,628. Roussel appealed, and Ashby cross-appealed the denial of his motion to set aside the default. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) declining to aware punitive damages to Roussel; (2) denying Roussel’s motion to amend the judgment by awarding additional attorney fees; and (3) denying Ashby’s motion to set aside the default. View "Roussel v. Ashby" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney practicing in Maine, was counsel to Plaintiff, and then to his estate, in a suit against Plaintiff’s conservator and Plaintiff’s brother. The suit resulted in a judgment against Plaintiff. Defendant obtained a turnover and sale order for Plaintiff’s residence. In the meantime, a limited liability company of which Plaintiff was a member sold a piece of commercial real estate. Before the closing, Defendant sent a letter to the attorney handling the closing advising that Plaintiff owed a judgment debt to his brother’s estate. As a result, the attorney withheld Plaintiff’s share of the proceeds from the sale pending further court order. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting that the letter and its attachments constituted abuse of process. The superior court entered summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for either of the elements of his claim for abuse of process. View "Jennings v. MacLean" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Defendant of unlawful possession of scheduled drugs and ordered Defendant to forfeit his firearm to the State. Defendant filed a notice of appeal but did not request production of a transcript of the trial or submit a transcript substitute. Further, Defendant’s appendix filed with his brief contained neither a docket record of the proceedings nor the orders by which the court continued the date for trial. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of Defendant’s arguments because Defendant failed to comply with the applicable Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs. In 2012, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of scheduled drugs and admitted to a probation violation. Defendant was subsequently accepted into the Adult Drug treatment Court Program. In 2013, Defendant’s probation officer moved to revoke his probation, alleging that Defendant had committed new criminal conduct and had violated the conditions of his probation. After a hearing, the court found a probation violation and revoked Defendant’s probation in full. Defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to a neutral and detached decision maker was violated in the Drug Court proceedings. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment without reaching the issues regarding the Drug Court processes, holding that the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof in revoking probation. Remanded. View "State v. Power" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and domestic violence terrorizing. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it was required to acquit him if it found that the State failed to disprove self-defense and by failing to provide the jury with revised written instructions to correct an error in the written instructions that had been given to the jury when it began its deliberations. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the court’s instructions on self-defense suffered from two structural flaws that, taken together, rose to the level of obvious error; and (2) the prejudicial effect of the deficient instructions was compounded by the court’s decision not to give the jury corrected written instructions. Remanded. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

Mother’s first two children were removed from her care due to neglect. Mother’s third child lived with his paternal grandmother. Mother’s parental rights to her fourth child were terminated when the child was twelve months old. After Mother gave birth to her fifth child, R.M., the district court ordered that her parental rights to R.M. be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) determined by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect R.M. from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in R.M.’s best interest. View "In re R.M." on Justia Law