Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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)(ii), holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion by concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interest.The district court based its best interest determination primarily on the child's need for permanency. On appeal, Father did not challenge the court's factual findings or its determination of parental unfitness. Instead, Father asserted only that the court erred by concluding that termination of his parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion by concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interest. View "In re Child of Scott L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of divorce entered by the district court after a contested hearing and the court's denial of Father's post-judgment motions to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, holding that there was no error in the court's factual findings or any abuse of discretion in its awarding primary residence of the parties' minor child to Mother and establishing a gradually increasing contact schedule for Father.On appeal, Father argued that because the trial judge recused himself sua sponte after the judgment was entered, there may have been undue prejudice by the judge due to the judge's participation in other proceedings involving Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record provided no support for Father's claim that the trial judge erred in failing to recuse himself sua sponte during the trial. The Court remanded the matter for further proceedings on Mother's request for attorney fees. View "Schafer v. Schafer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of theft by unauthorized taking of a firearm and other offenses, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the court did not err in admitting certain testimony pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of scheduled drugs; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions for theft of a firearm and domestic violence criminal threatening; and (3) the trial court did not err by admitting a witness's testimony regarding statements Defendant's girlfriend made to him after Defendant left the house upon concluding that those statements qualified as excited utterances. View "State v. Curtis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for burglary, stealing drugs, and violation of a condition of release, holding that the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress al evidence obtained as a result of the State's acquisition of Defendant's cell phone's location information (CSLI).Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) because Defendant lacked standing to challenge evidence obtained as a result of the acquisition of a coperpetrator's CLSI, which was the same evidence Defendant sought to exclude based on the acquisition of his own CSLI, this Court need not decide whether the acquisition of Defendant's CSLI was a search under the Fourth Amendment; (2) whether the State violated Defendant's rights under Maine's Electronic Device Location information Act, 16 Me. Rev. Stat. 647 to 650-B, was irrelevant to whether the court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (3) the entry into and search of Defendant's residence were lawful. View "State v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court dismissing Defendant's petition for post-conviction review as untimely filed, holding that, contrary to Defendant's contention on appeal, the court was not precluded from summarily dismissing the petition based on the statutory filing deadline.Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs and illegal importation of scheduled drugs. Defendant filed a petition for postconviction review seeking to collaterally attack his conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial counsel dismissed the petition as untimely filed. On appeal, Defendant argued that the court erred in determining that there is no duty imposed on trial counsel or the sentencing court to inform Defendant about the deadlines for filing a post-conviction review petition. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) this Court declines Defendant's invitation to impose a new obligation on sentencing courts to inform defendants about the filing deadline set out in Me. Rev. Stat. 15, 2128-B; (2) trial counsel's failure to inform Defendant of the filing deadline for post-conviction review petitions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel or preclude enforcement of the filing deadline. View "Roque v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of manslaughter after a conditional guilty plea, holding that the State provided sufficient evidence, independent of Defendant's multiple confessions, to establish corpus delicti for the alleged homicide of Defendant's infant son.On appeal, the Court held (1) the trial court made several factual findings, supported by competent evidence in the record, that were sufficient to establish a substantial belief that the infant's death was a result of criminal agency; and (2) there was no reason to depart from the well-established corpus delicti doctrine and to adopt the federal "trustworthiness" standard. View "State v. Hagar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying First Financial, Inc.'s motion for relief from judgment after the court denied its motion to dismiss its foreclosure complaint against Peter and Judith Morrison and granted the Morrisons' motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the trial court did not err.In their motion for judgment on the pleadings the Morrisons asserted that First Financial's notice of default and the right to cure did not comply with the requirements of Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 6111. First Financial then filed a motion to dismiss its foreclosure complaint without prejudice. The court summarily denied First Financial's motion to dismiss and granted the Morrison's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that where evidence of a properly served notice of default and mortgagor's right to cure in compliance with statutory requirements is an essential element to support a judgment of foreclosure, the court did not err in granting the Morrisons' motion for judgment and denying First Financial's motion for dismissal without prejudice. View "First Financial, Inc. v. Morrison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their child, holding that the record contained competent evidence to support the court's findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of both parents' parental unfitness.Specifically, the Court held (1) the court's findings of unfitness were supported by competent record evidence; and (2) the court did not violate Mother's due process rights by denying her motion to continue and then commencing the termination hearing in her absence with the knowledge that she had been arrested, as Mother failed to show that she was prejudiced by her partial absence. View "In re Child of Raul R." 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 in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of her child.After a termination hearing, the court determined that the child's best interest would be served through the permanency plan of adoption. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, given the strength of the record, particularly the length of time the child had been in kinship care and Mother's consistent and demonstrated inability to provide a safe and stable home for the child, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. View "In re Child of Shannon S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in denying her motion for relief from the termination judgment, in which she alleged that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Father argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mother's motion for relief from the termination of her parental rights; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court's termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re Child of Dawn B." on Justia Law