Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed as moot this appeal from the decision of the superior court dismissing Appellant's petition against the Maine Department of Corrections for failure to serve the Department pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 11003(1), holding that events in the superior court had overtaken this appeal, rendering it moot.After Appellant filed this action, the trial court, treating the action as a petition for review of agency action, issued Appellant an order requiring him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to serve the Department. The court ultimately dismissed the petition for insufficient service of process. After Appellant's appeal was docketed, Appellant filed a motion asserting that the Department had acknowledged receipt of process. The court then negated its dismissal of Appellant's action. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "Paquette v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial court vacated the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's petition for post-conviction review, holding that Defendant must receive a new hearing on his petition.Defendant pleaded guilty of trafficking in prison contraband. Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction review alleging ineffective assistance by his plea counsel. The court held a hearing and announced that it would grant Defendant's petition. The court began to issue that decision from the bench, but an interruption led the court to resume the hearing. The court then proceeded to deny the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the process at Defendant's hearing irredeemably tarnished the appearance of fairness in the proceeding. View "Evans v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for unlawful sexual contact and domestic violence assault, holding that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant the opportunity to call as a witness the district attorney's victim witness advocate (VWA).On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed multiple instances of misconduct and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him the opportunity to call the VWA to testify. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) even if a statement made by the prosecutor was improper, it did not amount to harmful error; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request that the VWA testify. View "State v. Sholes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Maine Public Utilities Commission granting Central Maine Power Company's (CMP) petition for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for the construction and operation of the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project, holding that the Commission followed the proper procedure and that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commission's findings.In 2017, CMP filed a petition with the Commission for a CPCN for the NECEC project, a 145-mile transmission line. The Commission voted to grant CMP a CPCN for the construction and operation of the NECEC project. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not commit legal error when it decided that CMP was not required to file the results of a third-party investigation into nontransmission alternatives; (2) the Commission did not err in its construction and application of Me. Rev. Stat. 35-A, 3132(6); and (3) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in approving a stipulation between the parties requiring the project to provide myriad benefits to ratepayers and the State as conditions to the recommended Commission approval of the stipulated findings and issuance of the CPCN. View "NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of foreclosure entered by the district court in favor of U.S. Bank, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that U.S. Bank had standing to foreclose.U.S. Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure. At a hearing, the court admitted, over Jim Gordon's objection, a copy if a 2016 "Ratification of Assignment" stating that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for EquiFirst Corporation, assigned the mortgage in this case to U.S. Bank. The court ultimately concluded that U.S. Bank had standing to foreclose pursuant to the 2016 ratification and entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the copy of the 2016 ratification; and (2) the court did not err in concluding that U.S. Bank had standing. View "U.S. Bank National Association v. Gordon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's post-judgment motions for a new trial and for relief from judgment following the court's entry of a judgment terminating her parental rights to her children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motions for a new trial and for relief from judgment.The court concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services had met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect her children from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs and that Mother was unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that termination of Mother's parental rights was not premature and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's post-judgment motions for relief from judgment and for a new trial. View "In re Children of Jessica J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that Father's two children were in circumstances of jeopardy but vacated in part the orders granting two parental rights motions to modify, holding that the court erred, in part, in granting the motions to modify.This consolidated appeal concerned proceedings to determine parental rights and responsibilities and child protection proceedings involving Father, the two children, and the biological mother of each child. The district court entered judgments that (1) found both children were in circumstances of jeopardy; (2) granted a motion to modify an order governing parental rights and responsibilities between Father and the mother of the older child; and (3) granted a motion to modify an amended divorce judgment between Father and the mother of the younger child. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part the motions to modify, holding (1) the court did not clearly err in determining that each child was in circumstances of jeopardy; and (2) as to the motions to modify, the court erred by requiring that future contact between Father and each child be dependent upon the recommendation of the child's therapist because this transferred the court's responsibility for determining the best interest of the children. View "In re Children of Richard E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), holding that there was sufficient record evidence to support the court's findings of parental unfitness and best interest by clear and convincing evidence.The court terminated Mother's parental rights to the child on the grounds that Mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unable to take responsibility for the child and that these circumstances were unlikely to change in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. The court further found that termination of Mother's rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the court's determination that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. View "In re Child of Amber D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that competent evidence in the record supported the court's finding that Mother was parentally unfit and that the court did not err in finding that the Department of Health and Human Services had made reasonable efforts to reunify and rehabilitate Mother's family.Based on the evidence before it, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother met two of the four definitions of parental unfitness. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights; and (2) the court did not err in finding that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify and rehabilitate the family. View "In re Child of Amelia C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court finding that Mother's child was in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4002(6), 4035(2), and ordering the child remain in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's determination that the child was in jeopardy.On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, taken together, the court's supported factual findings were sufficient to support its determination that the child would be "subject to a threat of serious harm" if he were returned to the custody of Mother. View "In re Child of Whitney M." on Justia Law