Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Business and Consumer Docket affirming a decision of the Secretary of State that validated a direct initiative petition regarding the New England Clean Energy Connect Transmission Project (NECEC), holding that the Secretary of State properly validated the petition.On appeal, Delbert Reed claimed that the Secretary of State erred by (1) validating the petitions notarized by three notaries based on the Secretary of State's misinterpretation and misapplication of Me. Rev. Stat. 21-A, 9030E and Me. Rev. Stat. 954-A, and (2) failing to conduct a more thorough fraud investigation of the initiative campaign's signature-gathering process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Secretary of State did not err by declining, pursuant to sections 903-E and 954-A, to invalidate the petitions that were notarized by the notaries at issue; and (2) the Secretary of State reasonably determined that the broad assertions of fraud were insufficient grounds to launch an additional investigation of the entire campaign. View "Reed v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for reckless conduct and aggravated criminal mischief, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by offering Defendant a continuance of the trial in lieu of excluding his medical records.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to suppress his personal medical records as a sanction for the State's late seizure of the records. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that the State's conduct undermined the purpose of Maine Rule of Unified Criminal Procedure 18(b) but that the court's offer of a continuance in lieu of the exclusion of the evidence constituted an appropriate response to the State's conduct. View "State v. Mullen" on Justia Law

In this commercial forcible entry and detainer action brought by 20 Thames Street LLC and 122 PTIP LLC (collectively, 20 Thames) the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award lease-based attorney fees upon finding for Ocean State Job Lot of Maine 2017, LLC, holding that the superior court did not err.Ocean State rented a commercial retail space from 20 Thames. 20 Thames later filed its compliant for forcible entry and detainer, alleging that Ocean State breached the terms of its lease. The business and consumer docket found in favor of Ocean State. The court awarded Ocean State costs and $206,076 in attorney fees based on a provision in the lease. The superior route affirmed the judgment for Ocean State but vacated the attorney fee award, concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to award lease-based attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 6017 did not provide authority for the district court to award lease-based attorney fees. View "20 Thames Street LLC v. Ocean State Job Lot of Maine 2017, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court finding that Mother presents jeopardy to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035, holding that the court miscalculated the date on which the child was considered to have entered foster care.In the jeopardy order, the court found that the child entered foster care on July 4, 2019, a finding to which Mother disagreed. Mother appealed, challenging the date the child was considered to have entered foster care. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the jeopardy order containing that finding, holding that September 2, 2019 is the date on which the child was considered to have entered foster care within the meaning of Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4038-B(1)(B), 4041(1-A), 4052(2-A)(A)(1). View "In re Child of Jillian T." on Justia Law

In this appeal from Defendant's conviction for eleven counts of gross sexual misconduct, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of conviction on one count, vacated the dismissal of other counts and remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal on those counts, and affirmed in all other respects, holding that Defendant's convictions on both Counts 5 and 30 violated his double jeopardy protections and that the court erred in allowing the State to dismiss Counts 27, 28, and 29 during trial without Defendant's consent.The indictment charged Defendant with fifteen counts (Counts 1-13, 30-31) of gross sexual misconduct against the victim and sixteen counts (Counts 14-29) of gross sexual misconduct against a second alleged victim. During trial, the court granted Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on Counts 10-13, and the State dismissed Counts 27-29. Defendant was found guilty of Counts 1-9 and 30-31 and not guilty on the remaining counts. The court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court erred in failing to rule that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred convictions on both Counts 5 and 30 and allowing the State to dismiss Counts 27, 28, and 29 rather than entering a judgment of acquittal on those counts. View "State v. Paquin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court terminating Appellant's participation in the Co-Occurring Disorders and Veterans Court (Veterans Court), holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Appellant's participation in the Veterans Court.The Veterans Court is a criminal docket that provides judicial monitoring, specialized treatment, and other services for military veterans who have disorders often attributable to their military service. Appellant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and three other offenses. Appellant was admitted to the Veterans Court. Agreeing to sentencing outcomes in a plea agreement and entering into a bail contract, Appellant pleaded guilty to all charges against him. The court later terminated Appellant's participation in the Veterans Court, finding that Appellant had violated the conditions of his bail contract. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) this matter was properly before the Court; and (2) given Appellant's failure to comply with the requirements for participation in the treatment court and his violations of the agreements, his termination from the Veterans Court was warranted. View "State v. Catruch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the unified criminal docket denying Appellant's petition for post-conviction review, holding that Appellant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney played a video of the ten-year-old victim's interview with police and that Appellant was adversely affected.Appellant was convicted of two counts of gross sexual assault, one count of unlawful sexual contact, and one count of visual sexual aggression against a child. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for post-conviction review claiming that his trial attorney's representation was deficient because introducing the videotaped recording of the victim's entire interview with law enforcement was unnecessary to provide evidence supporting the victim's potential motive to fabricate the allegations. The post-conviction court denied denied the petition. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that trial counsel's conduct was deficient and that counsel's actions rose to the level of comprising the reliability of Appellant's conviction and undermining confidence in it. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Marla Bridges's motion to correct a clerical error in the parties' divorce judgment and denying Christopher Caouette's motion to terminate spousal support, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Caouette argued that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that the inclusion of the phrase "or remarries" in a provision of the divorce judgment was a clerical error and by denying his motion to terminate spousal support based substantively on Bridges's remarriage. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) although the court erred in identifying its decision as a clerical correct, it was clear that the court was interpreting the original divorce judgment and in so doing was acting to grant Bridges's motion to enforce; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caouette's motion to terminate spousal support due to Bridges's remarriage based on its findings regarding the financial situations of both parties. View "Bridges v. Caouette" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of theft by unauthorized taking, theft by deception, securities violations, tax evasion, and failure to pay state income tax, holding that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence employee procedure manuals or certain checks with their memo lines unredacted without a limiting instruction; (2) the court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on the definition of the word “conduct,” by declining to instruct the jury on methods for calculating income taxes, and by failing to provide the jury with relevant statutes; and (3) the court did not err in concluding that Defendant's conduct satisfied the territorial applicability requirement of Maine law. View "State v. Lindell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of David Abildgaard following a trial on the foreclosure complaint filed by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for RPMLT 2014-1 Trust, Series 2014-1, holding that Wilmington failed to present evidence at trial of all necessary elements of its foreclosure claim.Abildgaard executed and delivered a promissory note and allonge in favor of Wilmington secured by a mortgage on real property located in Portland. Over a decade later, after Abildgaard defaulted on the loan, Wilmington filed a foreclosure complaint. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Abildgaard. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Wilmington failed to present evidence to establish all required elements of its foreclosure claim, and therefore, Abildgaard was entitled to a judgment on the merits. View "Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Abildgaard" on Justia Law