Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgments of conviction for both murder and robbery, holding that the instructions on the elements of robbery misstated the law and thereby also rendered erroneous a portion of the court's instructions on self-defense, requiring a new trial.Defendant was convicted of intentional or knowing murder and robbery. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court's jury instructions allowed the State to obtain a conviction without proof of every element of robbery as charged. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding (1) the instructions on the elements of robbery made it possible that the jury reached a verdict based on impermissible criteria; (2) the error in the robbery instruction also affected the judgment of conviction of murder; and (3) the error seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings and may have affected the verdicts. View "State v. Asante" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court placing A.I. in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, holding that the juvenile court correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when it determined whether to place A.I. in the custody of the Department.On appeal, Mother argued that the matter should be remanded to the juvenile court so that findings can be addressed under a clear and convincing standard rather than a preponderance of the evidence standard. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that A.I.'s dispositional hearing fell on the less-intrusive end of the continuum and that the juvenile court did not err when it applied the preponderance of the evidence standard in the proceedings below. View "State v. A.I." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court entering summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company on the complaint filed by Plaintiffs seeking to reach and apply the State Farm vehicle insurance coverage of a man found jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for damages, holding that the facts did not bring Plaintiffs' damages within the policy's coverage.Grover Bragg was driving a truck insured by State Farm to transport an intoxicated and delusional friend when the friend jumped out of the truck, broke into Plaintiffs' house, damaged property, and assaulted one of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs brought a complaint against Bragg, alleging negligence, and against Bragg's friend. The court concluded that Bragg and his friend were jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs and awarded damages. The Supreme Court affirmed. Plaintiffs then commenced the present action seeking to reach and apply Bragg's vehicle insurance policy and to obtain a declaratory judgment that the coverage applied. The court entered summary judgment for State Farm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the injuries and property damage suffered by Plaintiffs were not causally connected to the vehicle use in a way that brought them within the insurance coverage. View "Haskell v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Father was parentally unfit and that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of the children.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the record contained sufficient evidence for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that Father was unable or unwilling to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs or in finding that Father failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children and was therefore unfit to parent the children; and (2) the record contained sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that termination was in the children's best interests. View "In re Children of Jason C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit and that termination was in the best interest of the child.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court's findings as they relied to Mother's unfitness were supported by the evidentiary record, such as evidence regarding Mother's inability to remain child-focused and her longstanding health issues; and (2) there was neither error nor abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. View "In re Child of Louise G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their three children, holding that the trial court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion.In terminating Parents' parental rights the trial court concluded that Parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time calculated to meet the children's needs and that Parents had been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department of Health and Human Services presented sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could find that Parents were parentally unfit; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination was in the children's best interests; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in questioning Father or any other witness pursuant to Me. R. Evid. 614. View "In re Children of Jamie P." on Justia Law

In this foreclosure action, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court entered in favor of Duane Beedle, holding that the court erred in concluding that U.S. Bank, N.A. did not prove that it owned the mortgage and therefore did not have standing to file a foreclosure action.In 2003, Beedle executed a note and mortgage in favor of Fleet National Bank for the purchase of certain property. In 2012, the mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank, as trustee for Assignee #1. In 2016, Beedle was sent a notice of default. Beedle declared the entire principal amount outstanding. In 2017, a second assignment was executed, by which U.S. Bank claimed that Assignee #1 assigned its interest in the mortgage to U.S. Bank. U.S. Bank subsequently commenced this foreclosure action. The district court entered judgment for the Beedles, concluding that U.S. Bank failed to prove ownership of the mortgage due to a "faulty" 2012 assignment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the 2012 assignment of the mortgage was enforceable. View "U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Beedle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of manslaughter and aggravated assault, holding that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred in denying his request to pose questions regarding self-defense and defense of another in the juror questionnaire, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Defendant's actions - rather than subsequent medical treatment - caused the victim's death. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) while the court could have included an appropriate question regarding self-defense and defense of another, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to include such a question; and (2) based on the evidence in there record, the jury could rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's death would not have occurred but for the conduct of Defendant and that the medical care was not clearly sufficient to cause the victim's death. View "State v. Limary" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of Class B theft by deception and one count of Class C theft by deception, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred by failing to include a “nexus” element in its instruction to the jury on the charge of theft by deception, (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of theft by deception, and (3) his actions constituted a breach of contract, not a criminal offense. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt each element of theft by deception based on the testimonial and documentary evidence presented at trial and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; and (3) Defendant waived his ability to challenge the jury instructions on appeal. View "State v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part and affirmed in part a summary judgment entered in the business and consumer docket that adjudicated all claims on the parties' separate, but judicially consolidated, petitions for review of two tax abatement decisions, holding that the court erred in partially abating a portion of certain penalties levied by the State Tax Assessor against Kraft.On appeal, Kraft argued that the lower court erred in determining that it was not entitled to an alternative apportionment of a portion of its 2010 taxable income, that it was not entitled to a full abatement of penalties levied by the Assessor as part of the "first assessment," and that the "second assessment" was not time barred. The Assessor cross-appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in partially abating the substantial understatement penalty levied as part of the first assessment. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court's conclusion that Kraft was not entitled to an alternative apportionment; (2) vacated the court's partial abatement of the substantial underpayment penalty because Kraft was not entitled to any abatement; and (3) affirmed the court's determination that the second assessment was not barred by the statute of limitations. View "State Tax Assessor v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc." on Justia Law