Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the order of the superior court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for Defendant's cell phone account data and a search warrant for a codefendant's cell phone data, holding that there was no illegality in the search of Defendant's data and that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the codefendant's data.On appeal, the State argued that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrant issued to search the codefendant's account data and that the superior court erred by determining that neither search warrant was supported by probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order to the extent that it suppressed the evidence obtained through the two warrants, holding (1) the affidavit for the warrant to search Defendant's account data was supported by probable cause; and (2) given that Defendant failed to assert any reasonable expectation of privacy in the codefendant's account data, Defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrant to search the codefendant's data. View "State v. Warner" on Justia Law

In this personal injury claim based on premises liability the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint actually constituted an action for medical negligence, holding that Plaintiff's claim was not within the ambit of the Maine Health Security Act (MHSA), Me. Rev. Stat. 24, 2501-2988.In her complaint Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries when she slipped and fell in the locker room of a facility owned and run by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim was actually for medical negligence, which must be brought in accordance with the procedural requirements of the MHSA. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the claim was properly brought as a premises liability claim and was not within the purview of the MHSA. View "Salerno v. Spectrum Medical Group, P.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment entered by the trial court convicting Defendant of unlawful sexual touching and assault, holding that the court erred in allowing the State to introduce improper character evidence and that the prejudice suffered as a result of that error, when considered cumulatively with the effect of an instance of prosecutorial misconduct, deprived Defendant of a fair trial.Although the issue was not preserved at trial or raised on appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court examined the State's cross-examination of Defendant to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) on the record, prosecutorial misconduct plainly occurred, and the misconduct affected Defendant's substantial rights; (2) the introduction into evidence of federal probation violations was error and highly prejudicial to Defendant; and (3) the cumulative effect of the trial errors deprived Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Robbins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court concluding that the Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) had issued correct decisions regarding Somerset County's two requests for public records submitted pursuant to Maine's Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), Me. Rev. Stat. 1, 400-414, holding that the court properly concluded that one set of records was subject to disclosure and the other set was not subject to disclosure.In December 2016 and October 2017 the County submitted its requests seeking records concerning valuation information that Blue Sky West, LLC had submitted to Maine Revenue Services as part of the State's assessment of taxes on property that Blue Sky owned in the County. DAFS determined that the records responsive to the County's 2016 request were public records subject to disclosure but that the records responsive to the 2017 request were confidential by statute and thus were not public records. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err by concluding that the 2016 records were subject to inspection and copying by the public but that the 2017 records comprised clearly labeled proprietary information protected from disclosure pursuant to FOAA. View "Blue Sky West, LLC v. Maine Revenue Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding by clear and convincing evidence that the four children of Mother and Father were in circumstances of jeopardy as to each parent and that continued custody of the children by either parent was likely to cause them serious emotional or physical damage, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on out-of-court statements made by the children; (2) under state and federal law, the evidence was sufficient to support the court's required factual findings by clear and convincing evidence that the children were in circumstances of jeopardy and that returning the children home would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage; and (3) the parents' argument that the evidence did not support the court's dispositional order was interlocutory and not cognizable here. View "In re Children of Danielle H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Richard Tranfield and Karla Doremus-Tranfield (the Tranfields) on their complaint alleging that Patricia Arcuni-English's installation of trees on the boundary line between the parties' properties constituted a nuisance under both common law and Maine's spite fence statute, Me. Rev. Stat. 17, 2801, holding that the court did not err.The superior court determined that Arcuni-English's installation of trees on the parties' boundary line constituted a spite fence because her installation of more than thirty trees, which created a dense and continuous wall, was done with malice. The court ordered Arcuni-English to remove every other tree along the boundary line, remove the trees that were planted as an additional row to fill in gaps, and trim the trees to a height no greater than ten feet. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in determining that the Transfields demonstrated that Arcuri-English had a dominantly malicious move; (2) the court did not err by finding that the height of the trees unnecessarily exceeded six feet; and (3) the court crafted a fair remedy based on its findings. View "Tranfield v. Arcuni-English" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Nancy Bergin a divorce from Daniel Bergin, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in setting parental rights and responsibilities between the parties as to their three minor children and by denying Nancy's request for an order for protection from abuse.Specifically, the Court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in (1) granting Daniel primary residence of the children and final decision-making authority in regard to the children; (2) allowing an expert on parental alienation to testify; (3) declining to award Nancy continuing spousal support; and (4) denying Nancy's request for an order for protection from abuse. View "Bergin v. Bergin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the unified criminal docket convicting Defendant of unlawful sexual contact, holding that the trial court did not err when it admitted in evidence as past recollection recorded a video recording in which the victim described Defendant's assaults of her.The video recording was of a forensic interview conducted of the victim shortly after the crime occurred. On appeal, Defendant argued that the court erred in admitting the video in evidence because the State had not established the proper foundation required by the exception to the hearsay rule and because the admission of the video violated his constitutional right to confront the witness. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the court did not err by determining that the State had satisfied the foundational elements of the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule; and (2) the court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation by admitting the evidence because Defendant was provided the opportunity to cross-examine the victim about her out-of-court statements. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court Defendant's conviction of multiple sex crimes, holding that the trial court did not err in the jury selection process when it denied Defendant's motion to strike one of the jurors for cause and when it denied Defendant's motion to strike the entire venire after one prospective juror left the courtroom in an agitated state.At the beginning of jury selection, one prospective juror abruptly left the room when the charges against Defendant were being described. The court asked the remaining pool of jurors if there was anyone who would have difficulty being fair and impartial going forward, and thirty-four potential jurors answered in the affirmative. Defendant filed a motion to strike the entire jury venire. The court denied the motion, instead striking the thirty-four potential jurors. Defendant later moved to strike one juror on the ground that he had been equivocal about his ability to remain fair and impartial. The Supreme Judicial Court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the circumstances of this case did not present an extraordinary situation in which prejudice may be presumed or bias implied and that the court did not err in determining that the individual juror's ability to be fair and impartial was not affected. View "State v. Carey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the superior court on a variety of claims and counterclaims concerning the use and ownership of certain property in Cape Elizabeth and declaring Cunner Lane II, LLC the owner of certain property, as shown on a 1929 subdivision plan, holding that the court correctly granted Cunner Lane II a declaratory judgment that it held record title to the property.David Smith, Cunner Lane, LLC and Cunner Lane II, LLC (Cunner Lane II) appealed from the judgment. Cunner Lane Owners and Robert Siegel appealed from the judgment with regard to the court's determination declaring Cunner Lane II the owner of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case, holding (1) the court correctly determined that Cunner Lane II held title to the property; (2) the court erred in making any determinations concerning Siegel's ownership of Brook Road and in declaring certain Cunner Lane Owners owners to the centerline of Brook Road in its entirety; and (3) any adverse possession claims will require additional litigation. View "Fissmer v. Smith" on Justia Law