Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the probate court appointing the Department of Health and Human Services as T.'s adult guardian and conservator pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 5-301, 5-401(2), holding that the probate court did not err in determining that the emergency and final hearings on the Department's petition constituted a unified proceeding.The Department filed a petition for appointment of a full guardian and conservator for T., age eighty-six, in the probate court, and also requesting the appointment of an emergency guardian and conservator. The court held an evidentiary emergency review hearing, after which the court ordered that an emergency appointment continue pending a final hearing. The court then held a final hearing and granted the Department's petition. T. appealed, arguing that the court should not have considered certain testimony given at the emergency hearing because the court's conclusion that the two proceedings were part of a unified proceeding was erroneous. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that when the trial judge in a guardianship and conservatorship proceeding has heard the evidence presented in prior stages of the proceeding, that judge may consider the evidence in later stages because the process is a unified proceeding. View "In re Adult Guardianship & Conservatorship of T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant on two charges of aggravated furnishing of cocaine, which were merged for sentencing, holding that the trial court erred when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress, and the error was not harmless.At issue was the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained when police officers stopped him after receiving an anonymous tip and searched his belongings outside a bus station. The trial court concluded that the officers had an objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion that Defendant had been engaged in criminal activity when they stopped they stopped him. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that the evidence regarding the anonymous tip and the police's efforts to confirm its reliable failed to establish an objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop. View "State v. Barclift" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered in the trial court upon his conditional guilty plea to drug-related offenses and endangering the welfare of a child, holding that the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress.Based on evidence discovered during the stop of a Honda Civic the grand jury indicted Defendant on the four counts for which he was later convicted. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, arguing that the police officer lacked a clearly articulated and objectively reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant entered conditional guilty pleas on all counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the vehicle stop was constitutionally permissible, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Lovell" on Justia Law

On interlocutory appeal in this case involving the New England Clean Energy Connect project (Project), the Supreme Judicial Court held that retroactive application of legislation enacted by voters (the Initiative) to the Project, as required by section 6 of the Initiative, was unconstitutional.On November 2, 2021, fifty-nine percent of Maine voters approved a ballot question through a public referendum that would result in legislation effectively precluding the Project, which is designed to transmit power generated in Quebec through Maine and into Massachusetts. Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief alleging that retroactive application of the Initiative to the Project was unconstitutional. The trial court reported the case to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court held that section 6 of the Initiative, as applied retroactively to the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) issued for the Project, would infringe on Plaintiff's constitutionally-protected vested rights if Plaintiff can demonstrate that it engaged in substantial construction of the Project in good-faith reliance on the authority granted by the CPCN before Maine voters approved the initiated bill by public referendum. View "NECEC Transmission LLC v. Bureau of Parks & Lands" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of criminal operating under the influence (OUI) with one previous OUI offense and violation of condition of release entered by the trial court after a jury trial but vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that remand was required for resentencing.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his breath test results and that his right to confrontation was violated by the admission of the breath test certificate. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with Defendant's convictions and affirmed the judgment. The Court, however, vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that his sentence did not meet the mandatory minimum requirements for a conviction of criminal OUI with one previous OUI offense. View "State v. Beeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, and Defendant's remaining allegations of error were unavailing.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) because law enforcement had probable cause to arrest Defendant, the court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) the trial court did not err in determining that there was no violation of the court's sequestration order; (3) there was no obvious error in the instructions given to the jury; and (4) there was no illegality in the sentence or in the court's procedure. View "State v. Rosario" on Justia Law

In this post-dissolution action, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court granting Appellant's motion to amend a stipulated order, holding that the motion to amend the stipulated order was untimely.After the parties divorced they filed various post-judgment motions. The parties then reached an agreement and presented their stipulations to the court. The court executed a stipulated order without holding a hearing. Appellant later filed a motion to amend the order by inserting a vehicle or serial identification number to each alleged corresponding item of personal property listed in the stipulated order. The district court granted the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order below, holding that amending the stipulated order constituted a substantive change, and therefore, Appellant's motion should have been considered pursuant to Rule 59(e) as a motion to alter or amend the judgment rather than dismissed as untimely. View "Beedle v. Beedle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered by the superior court in favor of Somatex, Inc. on Kim Boivin's complaint alleging that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the negligence of Somatex, Inc., holding that the superior court correctly determined that Somatex owed no duty to Boivin.Boivin was operating a crane when a Somatex employee was knocked out of the crane and feel thirty feet to the floor, where he landed in front of Boivin. The employee died from his injuries, and Boivin sustained PTSD and related disorders as a result of the accident. Boivin brought this action against Somatex, alleging negligence. The superior court granted summary judgment for Somatex. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Boivin failed to generate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Somatex breached its general negligence duty of care not to cause her physical injury or as to whether Somatex owed her a duty to avoid causing emotional harm; and (2) therefore, the superior court did not err in determining that Somatex was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Boivin v. Somatex, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part and remanded in part the divorce judgment entered by the district court on Husband's complaint, holding that the judgment was improper was to the property division and attorney fees.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) delineation of Wife's employment retirement accounts as marital or nonmarital property must be calculated pursuant to a three-step process for division of property in a divorce matter; (2) the relevant date for determining the marital and nonmarital portions of Husband's retirement accounts was the date of the entry of the divorce judgment; (3) the trial court erred by double counting Wife's Vanguard retirement accounts; and (4) because the property division portion of the judgment must be vacated, the trial court's denial of Wife's request for attorney fees also must be vacated. View "Moran v. Moran" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court affirming the order of the Saco River Corridor Commission denying Appellant's application to build a privacy fence along a portion of his property, holding that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.The Commission denied Appellant's application on the grounds that a privacy fence along a portion of his property would unreasonably despoil the scenic, rural, and open space character of the Saco River Corridor. On appeal, Appellant argued (1) the Commission's "scenic view" rule, 94-412 C.M.R. ch. 103, 2(G)(3), is unconstitutionally void for vagueness and conflicts with the Saco River Corridor Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 38, 951-959; and (2) the Commission's decision to deny the permit was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the "scenic view" rule does not conflict with the Act, nor is it unconstitutionally void for vagueness; and (2) the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence. View "Ouellette v. Saco River Corridor Commission" on Justia Law