Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

All parties in this case were practicing Maine attorneys or law firms that asserted various theories of entitlement to all or part of a $1.24 million attorney fee generated in a civil judgment in another matter. In both matters, the superior court denied the motion of Daniel G. Lilley and Daniel G. Lilley Law Offices, P.A. to consolidate the matters for trial and proceeded to dispose of the cases through summary judgment on some claims and dismissal or severance of others. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments except for a single claim, holding that, with one exception, the superior court erred in denying the motion to consolidate the claims. Remanded. View "Tucker v. Lilley" on Justia Law

Six days after premature twins were born, the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for a child protection order, alleging that the twins were in circumstances of immediate risk of serious harm based on Mother’s infliction of fatal injuries to the parents’ one-year-old adopted son and Father’s infliction of serious bruising to the son two days before his death. The district court concluded that the twins would be in circumstances of jeopardy to their health and welfare if returned to the custody of their parents and found aggravated factors as to both Mother and Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did err when it found aggravating factors as to Father or when it admitted an autopsy report of the parents’ son. View "In re E.A." on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping and assault. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in analyzing the defense of mental abnormality. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the trial court applied the correct analysis in determining whether evidence of Defendant’s purported abnormal condition of mind negated his requisite culpable state of mind; and (2) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for the trial court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant acted with the intent to complete the crime of attempted kidnapping. View "State v. Graham" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her minor child, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that competent record evidence supported the court’s findings of parental unfitness and that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re C.A." on Justia Law

The district court entered a divorce judgment awarding Wife spousal support and child support and declined to award her retroactive child support or attorney fees. Wife appealed, raising several allegations of error. After noting that this case presented particular challenges to the court in seeking to reach a fair and equitable result, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding spousal support, imputing income to Wife, declining to award Wife retroactive child support, or leaving each party responsible for his or her own attorney fees. View "Buck v. Buck" on Justia Law

Wayne and Michelle McClellan applied for a conditional use permit to build a disc-golf course in the City of Saco on property abutting a campground owned by Fred Fitanides. The Saco Planning Board voted to grant conditional approval for the project and issued the conditional use permits. The Saco Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) affirmed the Planning Board’s decision. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the Planning Board issued the permits in compliance with the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance; and (2) Fitanides was not prejudiced by any procedural irregularities in the administrative process. View "Fitanides v. City of Saco" on Justia Law

In two criminal cases, Defendant was indicted on several charges, including unlawful trafficking in synthetic hallucinogenic drugs and conspiracy to commit unlawful trafficking in synthetic hallucinogenic drugs. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the two cases, arguing that the statute defining a “synthetic hallucinogenic drug” is unconstitutionally vague. The superior court denied the motions to dismiss. Defendant subsequently entered conditional guilty pleas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the term “derivative” used in the statute is not unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the statute as a whole is not unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Reckards" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and refusal to submit to arrest or detention. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the trial court did not err or violate Defendant’s constitutional rights by sustaining the State’s objection to Defendant’s cross-examination of a certain witness about the nature of the locale where the crime allegedly occurred based on weaknesses in the probative value of the evidence; and (2) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal, as the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

When Mark Chartier and Lisa Heward were married, Chartier purchased an annuity policy from Farm Family Life Insurance Co. for which he named Heward as primary beneficiary. Heward later requested the cash value of the annuity to Farm Family by signing Chartier’s name on the form. Farm Family issued a check payable to Chartier in the requested amount, Heward deposited the check into her and Chartier’s joint account with Gorham Savings Bank, and then withdrew $40,000 from the joint account. That same day, Heward informed Chartier that she wanted a divorce. Chartier filed a complaint against Farm Family, Gorham Savings Bank, and Farm Family’s sales agent, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to all counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly entered in the defendants’ favor as to all counts. View "Chartier v. Farm Family Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and other crimes. Prior to sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his pleas and his admission, alleging that his diagnosis of kleptomania in a presentence mental evaluation report constituted new evidence of a mental abnormality that raised a reasonable doubt as to his intent to commit the crimes charged. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas, as the evidence of kleptomania could not raise a reasonable doubt as to Defendant’s intent to commit burglary and theft, and the kleptomania diagnosis did not require the trial court to grant Defendant a discretionary withdrawal of his pleas. View "State v. Giroux" on Justia Law