Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating under the influence, holding that the trial court erred by admitting, as an adoptive admission and over Defendant's objection, the inculpatory statement of Defendant's friend, who did not testify at trial.The court admitted the friend's statement as an admission adopted by Defendant, ruling that the statement was admissible as an opposing party's statement. The friend was not present at trial and did not testify. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) under these circumstances, the defendant must undertake an observable action, either through words or conduct, by which a reasonable person would understand that the defendant did, in fact, adopt the statement; (2) although a statement may be admissible as an admission of a party in a civil case if the statement would, in context, caller a reply, this standard does not apply in a criminal trial because of a defendant's constitutionally protected right to remain silent; and (3) Defendant's silence in this case could not be construed as an adoption of the friend's statement. The Court then remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Rutherford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their children, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the court's determination that the parents were parentally unfit and that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the children's best interests.Specifically, the Court held (1) the lower court's findings were sufficient to support the court's determinations that both parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs and that termination of the parents' parental rights was in the children's best interest; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion for relief from the judgment on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel and in concluding that no hearing was necessary. View "In re Children of Meagan C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Father's children were in circumstances of jeopardy to their health or welfare in Father's care, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Father argued, among other things, that the court violated his due process rights in entering the jeopardy order because the matter was initiated due to the failure of the Department of Health and Human Services to continue to pay in a timely manner for the family's temporary housing, which resulted in Father's arrest for criminal trespass. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) although Father was correct that the Department's delay in payment contributed to the situation, the circumstances upon which the court based its jeopardy finding were well supported in the record; and (2) the court did not err in finding an existing threat of serious harm to the children that necessitated the entry of a jeopardy order. View "In re Children of Philip M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of aggravated assault, assault, and attempted kidnapping with the intent to hold for ransom or reward, holding that the court did not err in its instructions to the jury and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty of the convictions; and (2) the court did not err in denying Defendant's requested instructions regarding the meaning of physical health and the use of a dangerous weapon. The Court remanded the case only for dismissal of a fourth count on which the parties intended a dismissal after the court declared a mistrial. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's complaint alleging attorney malpractice, holding that the court erred in concluding that Plaintiff failed to present evidence of causation to proceed with its legal malpractice claim.Plaintiff submitted an application for site plan review for approval of a commercial facility. The town's planning board approved the application. Abutters to the site appeal the decision to the town's board of appeals (BOA), and Plaintiff hired Defendants to represent it before the BOA. The BOA ultimately reversed the planning board's decision. Plaintiff appealed, but because Defendants failed to file a brief, the appeal was dismissed. Plaintiff then brought this action alleging that it suffered harm due to Defendants' negligence. The court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Plaintiff could not show either that the planning board's decision would have been upheld or that the BOA's decision would have been overturned absent Defendants' negligence. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the superior court, had it originally reviewed the planning board's decision, would have concluded that the board's approval of the site plan did not reflect error. View "MSR Recycling, LLC v. Weeks & Hutchins, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that Father was not denied a fair hearing and that the court did not err by drawing an adverse inference from Father's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege.On appeal, Father argued that the district court's judgment violated his due process rights because the court predicated factual findings that he was involved in illegal drug activity in part on his invocation at trial of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) Father received a fair hearing; (2) the court did not err by considering evidence of Father history of drug-related criminal conduct and substance abuse, established in part by adverse inferences, as factors that contributed to the determination of parental unfitness; and (3) the court was entitled to conclude that Father was parentally unfit within the meaning of at least one statutory definition of that legal standard. View "In re Child of Scott A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the business and consumer docket dismissing as time-barred Plaintiff's complaint against U.S. Bank, N.A., the servicer of a mortgage she executed to secure a loan, holding that the court correctly dismissed the complaint as untimely filed.Plaintiff fully performed her obligations arising from a transaction in which she borrowed money and executed a mortgage to secure the loan. Four years after her claim accrued, Plaintiff brought this action under Me. Rev. Stat. 33, 551, alleging that U.S. Bank did not fulfill its statutory duty when it came time for the mortgage to be discharged. The business and consumer docket concluded that the claim was subject to the one-year limitation period set forth in Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 858 and was thus time-barred. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court correctly dismissed the complaint because it was subject to the one-year statute of limitations. View "Denutte v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law