Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court held that Wayne Jortner, Richard Bennett, John Clark, and Nicole Grohoski (collectively, Jortner) met his burden to demonstrate that a ballot question for citizen-initiated legislation was not "understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time" and that it would mislead a reasonable voter under Me. Rev. Stat. 21-A, 905(2).Jortner brought this action seeking judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision upon the final wording of the ballot question for the citizens' initiative proposing legislation entitled "An Act To Create the Pine Tree Power Company, a Nonprofit, Customer-owned Utility." At issue was whether Pine Tree Power Company should be described as "consumer-owned" rather than "quasi-governmental." The superior court entered judgment for Jortner. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Secretary of State's use of the term "quasi-governmental" did not comply with her responsibilities to ensure that the description of the subject matter was understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time. View "Jortner v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of intentional or knowing murder and his thirty-five-year sentence, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and robbery of the same victim. On remand, the trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty-five years for the murder conviction and twenty tears for the robbery conviction, to be served concurrently. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the lower court did not violate Defendant's constitutional rights to a sentence proportional to the offense in imposing the sentence; and (2) the lower court did not obviously err in failing to provide the jury a self-defense instruction under Me. Rev. Stat. 108(2)(A)(2). View "State v. Asante" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the post-conviction review (PCR) court denying Appellant's PCR petitions, holding that the PCR court misconstrued aspects of the relevant law.In his speedy trial petitions, Defendant argued that his rights to a speedy trial had been violated and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise his speedy trial claims. The PCR court denied the petition. Thereafter, Defendant sought a certificate of probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) the PCR court utilized a faulty analysis in concluding that there was no merit to Defendant's speedy trial claim; and (2) because the PCR court did not analyze counsel's strategy in failing to assert Defendant's right to a speedy trial the case must be remanded. View "Winchester v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs and two counts of criminal forfeiture, holding that the trial court did not err in denying either Defendant's motion to suppress or his motion for discovery.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress and his request for additional discovery relating to the State's cooperating defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) law enforcement agents had probable cause to support their stop of Defendant, and therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's discovery motion. View "State v. Lepenn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the series of consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court upon Appellant's guilty pleas to ten counts of aggravated attempted murder and other crimes, holding that the trial court did not make the factual findings required for the imposition of consecutive sentences.Appellant pleaded guilty to ten counts of aggravated attempted murder, one count of robbery, one count of failure to stop, and one count of theft. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of 225 years of incarceration, with no less than thirty years to be served. The State later agreed that the sentence imposed was unlawful. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the sentences, holding that the court imposed consecutive sentences without making the required findings and providing the required explanation for each conviction, in violation of Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 1608(1). View "State v. Murray-Burns" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court answered a certified question as follows: no warranty is implied by the use of the term "Warranty Deed" to describe an instrument which "grants...real property with the buildings and improvements thereon...being the same premises conveyed to GRANTOR" by prior deed.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington certified to the Supreme Judicial Court the question of whether, under Maine law, any warranty was implied by use of the term "Warranty Deed" to describe the instrument at issue and, if so, which warranty or warranties were implied. The Supreme Judicial Court answered the question in the negative, concluding that no warranty was implied by the use of the term "Warranty Deed" to describe an instrument that "grants...real property with the buildings and improvements thereon...being the same premises conveyed to GRANTOR" by prior deed. View "Kneizys v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and unlawful possession of scheduled drugs, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not commit clear error when it allowed ta confidential informant (CI) to testify regarding the manner in which he had previously met with Defendant to obtain drugs; (2) any prosecutorial error during closing argument about the role of CIs in society did not affect Defendant's substantial rights; and (3) there was no error in the jury instructions given during the proceedings below. View "State v. Osborn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder but vacated his sentence, holding that a criminal defendant's decision to exercise his constitutional right to a trial by jury may not be considered at sentencing.After a seven-day trial at which Defendant did not testify, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to murder. After a sentencing hearing, the court found that there were no mitigating circumstances and imposed a thirty-two-year sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it denied Defendant's request to provide him with access to the grand jury transcript; but (2) abused its discretion by referencing Defendant's demand for a jury trial in determining the genuineness of Defendant's claim of personal reform and contrition. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court adopting the final order of the family law magistrate ordering Mother's divorce from Father, awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' child to Father, and distributing the parties' property, holding that the record lacked competent evidence to support the district court's findings.Mother, acting pro se, timely filed an objection to the final order of the magistrate, but the court denied the motion and adopted the magistrate's judgment. Mother then filed for relief from judgment, to set aside the default judgment, for a new trial, and for amended or additional factual findings. The motions were denied. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case, holding (1) when asserting that a magistrate's judgment lacks sufficient fact-finding, the objecting party should make her claim in a Mont. R. Civ. P. 118(a) objection, not a Mont. R. Civ. P. 52 motion after the district court has reviewed the Rule 118(a) objection; and (2) remand was necessary in this case because the existing record did not support the judgment. View "Daniel v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment convicting Defendant of two counts of gross sexual assault, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Defendant was an "other official" under Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A 253(2)(F).Defendant was a fifty-seven-year old driving school owner who taught driver's education courses at a public high school in Skowhegan. On two occasions, Defendant picked up the victim at school in the vehicle that he used to teach students to drive, drove her to a motel, and engaged in a "sexual act" with the victim. The State charged Defendant with two counts of gross sexual assault under section 253(2)(F), under which a person is guilty if he engages in a sexual act with a student and the actor is a "teacher, employee or other official having instructional, supervisory or disciplinary authority over the student." The trial court concluded that Defendant was an "other official" of the high school and convicted him of both charges. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the lower court's findings. View "State v. Marquis" on Justia Law