Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the divorce judgment of the district court, holding that the district court erred in calculating past and future child support.On appeal, Father argued that the district court erroneously failed to account for changes in the parties' incomes and child care costs and to provide him with a downward deviation from child support guidelines and further erred in calculating his future child support obligation by excluding his child care costs. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court's child support order and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred in its award of both past and future child support. View "McCarthy v. Guber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on charges of domestic violence aggravated assault and domestic violence assault and the trial court's finding of guilty on a charge of violating a condition of release, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a representative jury by using the absolute disparity test to determine the racial makeup of the jury venire. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) appropriately determined the 1.01% absolute disparity in Defendant's jury venire was insufficient to show underrepresentation; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to subpoena the grand jurors. View "State v. Footman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court acquitting Defendant of eluding an officer after a jury found him guilty of that offense and two misdemeanors, holding that the evidence rationally supported the jury's verdict.The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty of all three charges for which he was indicted. Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the charge of eluding an officer, arguing that his speed was not reckless under the circumstances. The court granted the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of acquittal, holding that the jury could rationally find that Defendant operated at a "reckless rate of speed" - a required element of eluding an officer. View "State v. Brackett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court allocating parental rights regarding the parties' child in this case, granting primary residence to Kyla Estes and defining rights of contact to Nicholas Capelety, holding that any error in the proceedings below was harmless.Capelety, who had a child with Estes, filed a complaint for determination of parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support. Following a trial, the court issued a judgment determining parental rights and responsibilities. Capelety appealed, raising four assignments of error. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that even if the court abused its discretion in enforcing the limits controlling the order and timing of presentation of evidence in this case, it was highly probable that the court's enforcement of the time limits did not affect the judgment. View "Capelety v. Estes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the district court (1) did not err when it found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unfit as parents and that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to meet its statutory obligations pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4041(1-A)(A); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it found that termination of Parents' parental rights, rather than establishing a permanency guardianship, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Children of Quincy A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the City of Sanford following a jury trial on Plaintiff's complaint alleging that the City discriminated against him because of his disability, in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4553-A(1)(A)(C)-(D), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the superior court erred in excluding his proposed jury instruction that "it is illegal as a matter of law for any employer to impose a 100% healed or 100% fit policy on any applicants for employment or any employees." The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff properly preserved his objection to the court's instructions; and (2) the trial court did not err by rejecting Plaintiff's proposed instruction because it was sufficiently covered in the court's instructions. View "Smith v. City of Sanford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court divorcing Katharine Allerding from Neill Ewing-Wegmann, holding that Allerding was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Allerding challenged portion of the order awarding her and Ewing-Wegmann shared parental rights of their daughter and allocating Father's Day with the child to Ewing-Wegmann. Allerding also appealed the court's judgment ordering her to contribute to the fees of the appointed guardian ad litem (GAL). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determinations of rights of contact; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating GAL fees. View "Ewing-Wegmann v. Allerding" on Justia Law