Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of gross sexual assault and four related crimes, holding that a specific unanimity instruction was necessary as to counts three and four.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in not giving a specific unanimity instruction. The State conceded that a specific unanimity instruction was necessary as to counts three and four. The Supreme Court (1) vacated Defendant's convictions as to counts three and four; and (2) affirmed the judgment on but vacated Defendant's sentences imposed on counts one, two, and five because the sentences may have been affected by the now-vacated convictions on counts three and four. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court interpreting Me. Rev. Stat. 29-A, 2413-A to permit a determination that Defendant had committed three civil violations and to authorize the trial court to impose consecutive license suspensions, holding that the trial court did not err.Defendant admitted to three counts of committing a motor vehicle violation resulting in death pursuant to section 2413-A(1). After a penalty hearing, the trial court imposed a $5,000 fine and a three-year license suspension for each of the counts, with the fines being cumulative and the suspensions to be imposed consecutively. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the penalties, holding (1) section 2413-A(1) authorizes separate violations for each death that occurs as a result of a driving violation and authorizes trial courts to impose consecutive license suspensions under their discretion; and (2) the trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the consecutive suspensions. View "State v. Santerre" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the summary judgment entered by the Business and Consumer Docket in an action brought by Defendant's neighbors issuing a declaratory judgment and injunction based on the court's determination that Defendant's short-term rentals had violated a deed restriction that limits the use and occupancy of certain property and the structures on it, holding that remand was required.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the lower court's declaration that Defendant's short-term rentals of his oceanfront property had violated a deed restriction that limited the use and occupancy of the property and the structures upon it, holding that there was no error in the summary judgment as to these issues; but (2) vacated the court's injunction against further violations, holding that the injunction lacked specificity on what did and did not comply with the deed restriction in question. View "Morgan v. Townsend" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to revoke or suspend Appellant's hunting license for three years and his guide license for one year, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the Commissioner’s interpretation of the statute mandating revocation of Appellant's hunting license for one year was correct, and her action revoking Appellant's hunting license for one year was supported by substantial evidence; (2) Appellant did not overcome the presumption of constitutionality to demonstrate that the statute governing hunting license revocation and suspension was constitutionally vague; and (3) the Legislature acted within constitutional bounds in delegating authority to the Commissioner to establish standards of competency for licensed guides. View "Wood v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and one count of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs and finding that $1,500 was subject to criminal forfeiture, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Defendant's claim that his right to a speedy trial was violation under the Maine Constitution failed because he did not adequately assert his right, and his speedy trial claim under the United States Constitution failed under obvious error review; (2) Defendant's claim under the Maine Constitution that evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of a search warrant was inadmissible was unpreserved, and his claim under the United States Constitution that the warrants were not supported by probable cause failed; and (3) Defendant's last argument on appeal was unavailing. View "State v. Norris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court declaring that Marie and Peter Adams had a right to trim, cut, or remove branches or limbs of the oak tree on adjacent property owned by Alan and Gail Atkins, holding that the superior court did not err.Alan Atkins filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Adamses had no right to cut down any portion of the Atkinses' oak tree. The Adamses counterclaimed, requesting a declaratory judgment stating the opposite. The superior court ruled in favor of the Adamses, concluding that the Adamses were entitled to cut or remove branches of the Atkinses' oak tree that encroached onto the Adamses' property. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the common law dictates that property owners have the right to cut any part of a non-boundary tree that encroaches onto their property, regardless of how their actions affect the tree. View "Atkins v. Adams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court denying Appellants' Me. R. Civ,. P. 80B petition for review of government action and affirming the decision of the Portland Planning Board to approve 37 Montreal LLC's application to construct a multi-unit residential building, holding that the Planning Board did not err in approving the application.On appeal, Appellants argued that the proposed development failed to meet the City of Portland's Code of Ordinance's height, setback, and design-review requirements, and therefore, the Planning Board erred in approving the application. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the matter to the Planning Board for findings of fact, holding that judicial review was impossible because the Planning Board's decision did not contain any of the required findings. View "Murray v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court awarding attorney fees to the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) based on the court's ruling after an evidentiary hearing that the Maine County Commissioners Association Self-Funded Risk Management Pool (Risk Pool) had refused in bad faith to comply with HRDC's lawful request for records, holding that the Risk Pool's response constituted a bad faith refusal.HRDC submitted to the Risk Pool a request for records pursuant to the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), Me. Rev. Stat. 1, 400-414. The Risk Pool never denied or explicitly refused to comply with HRDC's request. Pursuant to FOAA's appeal procedure, HRDC filed a complaint against, among others, the Risk Pool. The Risk Pool filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that HRDC had failed to meet the FOAA requirement that the appeal be filed within thirty calendar days of the agency's "refusal, denial, or failure" to comply with the FOAA request. The motion was denied, and the court entered judgment in favor of HRDC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) HRDC's complaint was timely filed; and (2) the court did not err in awarding attorney fees based on the finding that the Risk Pool acted in bad faith in responding to HRDC's FOAA request. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. Maine County Commissioners Ass'n Self-Funded Risk Management Pool" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction of unlawful sexual contact entered after a jury trial, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the prosecutor did not err in making statements during closing arguments stating that consideration of motive was important; (2) the trial court did not commit obvious error in instructing the jury regarding motive, the State's burden of proof, or the presumption of Appellant's innocence; and (3) the trial court did not commit obvious error in the way it handled the process of allowing the jurors to decide when to proceed with the trial after a potential COVID-19 exposure. View "State v. Warner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the divorce judgment entered by the district court awarding Husband $35,500 of the marital equity in real estate owned by Wife and her father as joint tenants with one exception, holding that the findings and portion of the judgment regarding the valuation and division of marital property required vacatur.On appeal, Husband argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in valuing real estate as of the date the parties separated rather than the date that the parties divorced. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court did not err in its assessment of the marital equity in the real estate; and (2) the court erred as a matter of law in applying equitable principles to determine the marital property's value. The Court remanded the case for the trial court to determine the value of the marital equity in the real estate at the time of the divorce based on its independent assessment of the appraisal evidence in the record. View "Bolduc v. Bolduc" on Justia Law