Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the City of Portland had proved that Appellant, the owner of an apartment building, had violated violated fire, electrical, and life safety provisions of Maine statutes and the Portland City Code, holding that the record supported the court’s decision.The City notified Appellant of code violations on eight occasions, but Appellant did not remedy significant violations that endangered her tenants. Ultimately, the City commenced an enforcement action. After a trial that Appellant failed to attend, the court found that the City had proved multiple code violations. The court imposed penalties on Appellant of more than $500,000, plus costs and attorneys fees. On appeal, Appellant challenged the district court’s determination of the penalties. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court correctly applied the statute governing penalties, Me. Rev. Stat. 30-A, 4452(3)(E). View "City of Portland v. Chau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his three children, holding that the court did not err in its unfitness or best interest determinations.Specifically, the Court held that the district court did not err in finding that Father remained unable to protect the children from jeopardy within a time that was reasonably calculated to meet their needs, failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, and did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Child of Edward F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction of gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and furnishing liquor to a minor, holding that the court did not err in determining that Appellant was competent to stand trial.Appellant entered conditional guilty pleas to all three charges. On appeal, Appellant argued primarily that the court erred when it determined that he was competent to stand trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the party seeking the determination of incompetence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is incompetent to proceed; and (2) the trial court in this case correctly allocated the burden of proof, applied the appropriate evidentiary standard, and did not err in finding Appellant competent to stand trial. View "State v. Gerrier" 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. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s unfitness and best interest determinations.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the record supported the findings, by clear and convincing evidence, and conclusions of the district court that (1) Father was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or to take responsibility for him within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and (2) termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Adam E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child, holding that sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding of parental unfitness and that the court did not abuse its discretion by terminating Father’s parental rights rather than imposing a permanency guardianship.After a hearing, the district court entered a judgment terminating Father’s parental rights after finding that he was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for her within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father failed to alleviate jeopardy or be able to take responsibility for the child; and (2) the court did not err in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Domenick B." 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. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv), holding that Father received sufficient notice of the termination hearing and that the court did not err by admitting the testimony of a Department of Health and Human Services supervisor.Father failed to appear but was fully represented by counsel at both the jeopardy hearing and the termination hearing. The court ultimately found that Father was unfit and that termination was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Father’s notice of the termination hearing through service by publication was legally sufficient; and (2) the district court did not commit obvious error in failing to exclude from evidence, sua sponte, the testimony of the Department supervisor. View "In re Child of Kaysean M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating under the influence (OUI) with one prior OUI offense, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion during the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the court abused its discretion when it ordered that the State would be permitted to use a challenged video recording to impeach Defendant if he testified and contradicted what the video showed, despite the court’s order sanctioning the State by excluding the recording from the State’s case-in-chief. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the State’s failure to provide Defendant with the recording it intended to offer in evidence within seven days after his plea of not guilty constituted a violation of M.R.U. Crim. P. 16(a)(2)(C); but (2) the court acted within its discretion in declining to exclude the video altogether, and the sanction did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Matatall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her youngest child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv), holding that the court did not deny Mother due process, did not err when it found Mother unfit, and did not abuse its discretion when it determine that terminating her parental rights was in the best interest of the child.On appeal, Mother contended, among other things, that she was denied due process when the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing in her absence on the petition to terminate her parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district did not deprive Mother of due process where Mother was voluntarily absent without good cause during the evidentiary hearing not he termination petition; and (2) the court did not err in finding that Mother was unfit or abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child. View "In re Child of Tanya C." on Justia Law

In this dispute over the location of the boundary between the land of Appellees and the land of Appellants, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court declaring the location of that boundary line, holding that the superior court did not err or abuse its discretion.On appeal, Appellants generally challenged the discretionary decisions made by the trial court in its management of the proceeding. The Supreme Judicial Court denied the challenges, holding that, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion either in its case management orders or in its findings and conclusions. View "Gammon v. Boggs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court appointing the Department of Health and Human Services as David P.’s limited public guardian pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 5-601, holding that any error on the part of the probate court was harmless and that there was sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the probate court’s judgment.On appeal, David argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the probate court’s decision and that the court erred in admitting a written report drafted by a psychologist in violation of the rule against hearsay. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) it was error for the probate court to admit the psychologist’s written report in its entirety, but the error was harmless; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment. View "Guardianship of David P." on Justia Law