Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The superior court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion or committed legal or factual error in several respects. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that because Defendant’s filings to the Court complied with neither the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure nor the Court’s specific orders to him, Defendant failed to comply with Me. R. App. P. 8, which appellants must adhere to in order to receive proper appellate review. View "Major v. Chiang" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his two children. Father appealed, arguing that the court’s denial of his motion to continue improperly deprived him of his right to counsel pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4005(2) because “he was not provided adequate time to speak and confer with his attorney prior to the hearing.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to continue; and (2) competent evidence in the record supported the court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, failure to make a good faith effort to reunify with the children, and that termination was in the best interests of the children. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his three children after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father was unfit and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not fail to critically assess the evidence before it, and there was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness; and (2) there was ample evidence in the record that termination of Father’s rights was in the children’s best interest. View "In re D.C." on Justia Law