Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of unlawful trafficking of oxycodone, unlawful possession of oxycodone, and carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in declining to evaluate the basis on which Defendant’s witness asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in declining to answer Defendant’s questions; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of an arrest of two individuals for possession of oxycodone allegedly purchased from Defendant, as the probative value of the evidence did not substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendant. View "State v. Norwood" on Justia Law

Mother and Father’s child was placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services after the district court found the child had severe failure to thrive, needed consistent feeding by mouth and feeding tube, and that the parents had not followed medical advice for treating the child’s condition. After a jeopardy hearing, the district court found that jeopardy existed as to both Mother and Father and ordered that the child remain in the Department’s custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy while in the parents’ care, requiring the child’s removal from her parents’ home in order to receive the medical care and treatment she required. View "In re M.E." on Justia Law

When Mother’s child was one year old, the district court found that Mother had placed her child in circumstances of jeopardy. Subsequently, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights, finding Mother unfit on the ground that she was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that termination of Mother’s rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court did err or abuse its discretion by imposing in the dispositional portion of the jeopardy order certain conditions that Mother was required to meet before the court would consider her to have alleviated the circumstances that led to the jeopardy finding. View "In re B.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners of property fronting a beach in the Town of Kennebunkport, filed this action against the Town and any member of the public who claimed any right to use the beach. The State and neighboring landowners, who filed counterclaims, intervened. The superior court determined (1) the Town and the public enjoyed a public prescriptive easement and easement by custom to engage in recreational activities on both the wet and dry sand portions of the beach; and (2) the public had rights concerning the intertidal zone of the beach pursuant to the public trust doctrine. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's judgment, holding (1) the neighboring landowners were not proper parties to the litigation; (2) the superior court erred in awarding the Town and the neighboring landowners a prescriptive easement and easement by custom over the beach; and (3) the superior court erred in deciding that the public had a right to engage in ocean-based activities in the intertidal zone pursuant to the public trust doctrine. Remanded.View "Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport" on Justia Law

In 2011, the district court entered a divorce judgment that ordered Defendant to make certain payments to Plaintiff. Defendant made timely payments until 2012. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for contempt against Defendant. The court district found Defendant delinquent in making payments and held him in contempt. The court committed Defendant to ninety days in jail, suspended, subject to Defendant making each payment specified in the divorce judgment for three years. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s finding of contempt to the extent the finding was based on Defendant’s past failure to comply with the divorce judgment; but (2) vacated the court’s imposition of coercive imprisonment as a remedial sanction for Defendant’s prospective noncompliance. Remanded.View "Murphy v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of operating after habitual offender revocation. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred when it failed to clarify the definition of “public way” as defined in Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 505(2); (2) the statute’s language is confusing and unconstitutionally vague; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve her clarification argument; (2) the language of the statute is outdated and confusing but describes a certain type of public way with sufficient certainty to survive a due process challenge; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.View "State v. Stanley" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank National Association (the Bank) filed an amended complaint for residential foreclosure against Thomas Manning. The case progressed through its pretrial stages. Eventually, the superior court dismissed the Bank’s foreclosure complaint with prejudice as a sanction for the Bank’s failure to comply with the court’s discovery order. The Bank appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint under the circumstances and that the court erred at several points as the case proceeded through its procedural steps. The Supreme Court agreed with the Bank and vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the order dismissing the Bank’s complaint with prejudice was an abuse of the court’s discretion. View "U.S. Bank N.A. v. Manning" on Justia Law

N.B. was the maternal grandmother of L.R. and the legal guardian of L.R.’s mother, who suffered from mental illness and had borderline intellectual functioning. L.R. was placed in foster care when she was two months old, and jeopardy orders were subsequently entered against both of L.R.’s parents. N.B. filed a motion requesting that L.R. be placed with her. The district court denied N.B.’s motion for kinship placement, concluding that it was not in L.R.’s best interest to be placed with N.B. Thereafter, N.B. appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it was interlocutory and barred by 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4006. View "In re L.R." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of manslaughter. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was subjected to custodial interrogation and did not receive Miranda warnings and because he was in a state of shock and emotional distress that rendered his statements involuntary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that Defendant’s statements were not made in the course of custodial interrogation for purposes of Miranda; and (2) the trial court did not err in determining that Defendant’s statements were made voluntarily. View "State v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Cote Corporation filed a mechanic’s lien against real property owned by Kelley Earthworks, Inc. Cote subsequently brought a complaint to enforce the lien against Kelley. Kelley did not respond to the complaint or to Cote’s motion for summary judgment. The superior court entered Kelley’s default and then entered judgment for Cote, plus interest and attorney fees, and ordered that the property be sold to satisfy the judgment. Kelley appeared ten days after the judgment was entered on the docket and filed motions to set aside its default and for relief from the judgment. The court declined to set aside the default but did strike its order to sell the real property, instead awarding Cote a money judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the court erred in striking the provision of its order requiring a sale of the property. Remanded for entry of an order for the sale of at least a portion of Kelley’s land. View "The Cote Corp. v. Kelley Earthworks, Inc." on Justia Law