by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered in the trial court after a jury found Defendant guilty of intentional or knowing or depraved indifference murder and hindering apprehension or prosecution. The court held (1) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of incriminating statements he made during a police interview and photographs of injuries to his body; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the State’s presentation of allegedly perjured testimony during Defendant’s trial. View "State v. McNaughton" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). The court held (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Joseph V." on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). The court held (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Joseph V." on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment entered in the business and consumer docket partially denying Timothy Harper’s motion to reconsider and amend a previously-entered divorce judgment distributing his and Sheryl Harper’s assets. The court held (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Timothy committed economic misconduct resulting in the diminution of the martial estate by approximately $800,000; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to award Sheryl a portion of her attorney fees or in the court’s instructing a previously-appointed referee to oversee distribution of the parties’ assets. View "Harper v. Harper" on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment entered in the business and consumer docket partially denying Timothy Harper’s motion to reconsider and amend a previously-entered divorce judgment distributing his and Sheryl Harper’s assets. The court held (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Timothy committed economic misconduct resulting in the diminution of the martial estate by approximately $800,000; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to award Sheryl a portion of her attorney fees or in the court’s instructing a previously-appointed referee to oversee distribution of the parties’ assets. View "Harper v. Harper" on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court after a jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of aggravated driving to endanger. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the victims’ injuries when she was willing to stipulate that they had sustained serious bodily injuries and in denying her motion for a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in its treatment of the evidence of the victims’ injuries; and (2) a comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments did not result in obvious error, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Michaud" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court after a jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of aggravated driving to endanger. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the victims’ injuries when she was willing to stipulate that they had sustained serious bodily injuries and in denying her motion for a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in its treatment of the evidence of the victims’ injuries; and (2) a comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments did not result in obvious error, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Michaud" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered in the trial court convicting Defendant of several charges, including crimes of violence. After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple charges arising from an incident where Defendant engaged in conduct while affected by a distorted view of reality. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in interpreting Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 38 as applied to the evidence of Defendant’s mental condition and that the evidence of his mental abnormality foreclosed any determination that he acted with the required culpable state of mind. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the court’s application of section 38 was not in error, and (2) the evidence presented at trial supported the court’s factual findings beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Proia" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their child pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2). The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s determinations that the parents failed to ameliorate the issues of substance abuse, unhealthy relationships, and violence that resulted in the removal of the child from their care, and thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the parents were unfit; and (2) the court’s discretionary determination that termination was in the child’s best interest was not error or an abuse of discretion. View "In re Bradyn B." on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law

by
In this class action, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court declining to grant declaratory and injunctive relief from alleged violations of constitutional rights arising from the York County Probate Court schedule ordered by former York Court Probate Judge Robert Nadeau. While Plaintiff’s appeal was pending, Judge Nadeau filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case became moot when he lost the election for the probate judgeship. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) this appeal was is moot; and (2) the superior court did not err in determining that Judge Nadeau’s altered court schedule did not result in delays in these routine cases that rose to the level of constitutional deprivations, and Judge Nadeau did not violate the class members’ substantive due process rights as litigants in the York County Probate Court. View "Legrand v. York County Judge of Probate" on Justia Law