Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of assault a child younger than six years old, holding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court's jury instructions did not constitute obvious error, and there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict.Specifically, the Court held (1) the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct during the trial; (2) there was no obvious error in the trial court's instructions to the jury on the elements of the aggravated assault charges; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for one of the aggravated assault charges. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the Business and Consumer Docket (BCD) in favor of the Town of Bar Harbor on Landowners' complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Town's Zoning Ordinance Amendment was invalid, holding that Landowners failed to demonstrate a particularized injury and commenced this action prematurely.The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued an order approving the Amendment, which changed the Town's Land Use Ordinance by, among other things, creating a new Shoreland Maritime Activities District that would apply to the Town's Ferry Terminal Property. Landowners, individuals whose properties had views overlooking the waters adjacent to the Town's Ferry Terminal Property, sought a declaratory judgment that the Amendment was invalid. The BCD entered judgment for the Town. Landowners appealed, arguing that the Amendment was inconsistent with state law and that the court erred in deferring to the order of the DEP in approving the Amendment. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court's judgment on standing and ripeness grounds and remanded the case for dismissal without prejudice, holding that Landowners lacked standing to challenge the Amendment and that their claim was not ripe. View "Blanchard v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's judgment of conviction of manslaughter following a jury trial on an indictment for murder, holding that the trial court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held that the trial court (1) acted within its discretion in its conduct of voir dire, which addressed virtually all of Defendant's concerns; (2) did not clearly err in admitting a photograph of the victim with his son and acted within its discretion in overruling Defendant's Rule 403 objection; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by giving a curative instruction after the prosecutor misstated the evidence during closing arguments because the curative instruction adequately remedied any prejudice to Defendant. View "State v. Bethea" 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 court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.Mother left the hospital after giving birth to Child without taking Child with her. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother had not seen Child for more than a year. Despite having notice of a hearing for the termination of her parental rights, Mother did not appear. The district court terminated Mother's parental rights under Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(A), (b)(i)-(iv). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support all four grounds of unfitness found by the district court; and (2) the record supported the court's determination that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. View "In re Child of Nichole W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating under the influence, operating after suspension, and criminal speeding, holding that the court's instructions contained obvious error by informing the jury that it could consider evidence of a failure to submit to a test on the issue of operation.On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not receive a fair trial because the jury was instructed about how it could properly consider evidence of his failure to submit to a breath or blood alcohol test. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) because the jury instructions misstated the law and remained incorrect by any other component of the jury charge the instructions constituted plain error; and (2) the error rose to the level of obvious error because there was a reasonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial and Defendant's substantial rights. View "State v. Thurlow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding by clear and convincing evidence that each parent was unfit; (2) Mother's argument that her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were violated when the court terminated her parental rights based solely on her financial status was grounded on a faulty premise; (3) the court did not err in declining to allow a witness who testified at the hearing to testify as an expert; and (4) the court's factual finding that Father's unorthodox sleep pattern was a choice and not a disability was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, the court did not err in declining to accommodate the sleep pattern. View "In re Child of Rebecca R." on Justia Law

In this divorce case, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Karen Fox's motion to enforce the provision of the divorce judgment requiring Elwood Fox to pay towards his children's college expenses, holding that there was no error of law or abuse of discretion in the court's findings or judgment.In a separate motion, Karen requested sanctions for filing a frivolous or contumacious appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court both affirmed the judgment on the motion to enforce and awarded Karen attorney fees, holding that a sanction was warranted for this frivolous appeal and that Karen demonstrated that she was entitled to reasonable attorney fees. View "Fox v. Fox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder entered by the trial court after a jury-waived trial, holding that that the court did not err in admitting certain testimony given by the mother of the victim and that the sentence was without error.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court erred in admitting the mother's hearsay testimony, but the error was harmless because it was highly probable that the error did not affect the factfinder's judgment; and (2) the court did not "double-count" the factor of domestic violence in reaching its sentence. View "State v. Sweeney" 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 district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the court had sufficient to justify terminating Mother's parental rights after finding that she was unfit within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) and (ii); (2) the trial court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child that Mother's parental rights be terminated; and (3) no violation of Mother's due process rights occurred. View "In re Child of Sherri Y." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court affirming a decision of the Town of Belgrade Zoning Board of Appeals (BOA), which denied Appellant's application for commercial use of his property, holding that the superior court did not err in affirming the BOA's decision.Appellant submitted applications to the Town's Planning Board for a seasonal dock and boat rental business at his property. The Planning Board denied both applications, concluding that the property failed to meet the minimum lot standards provided in the relevant zoning ordinance. The BOA upheld the decision. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the BOA did not err, and the BOA's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Grant v. Town of Belgrade" on Justia Law