Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of domestic violence assault and violating a condition of release, holding that certain errors in the jury instructions constituted obvious error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing fully to instruct the jury on the State’s burden to disprove the statutory justifications Defendant produced in defense of the charges or on the consequences of the State’s failure to meet that burden. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that the trial court’s instructions were deficient, holding that the errors in the jury instructions were highly prejudicial, tending to produce manifest injustice. View "State v. Villacci" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in determining that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest when the child was placed in a permanency guardianship with his paternal grandparents and Father’s parental rights were not terminated. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding unfitness and determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest, despite the establishment of a permanency guardianship and Father’s retention of his parental rights. View "In re Child of Emily K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a bail condition order prohibiting Defendant from possessing a “dangerous weapon” issued by a New Hampshire bail commissioner was a “similar order issued by a court…of another state” pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A 4011(1)(A), and therefore, the State could prosecute Defendant for an alleged violation of that order.Defendant filed a motion to dismiss charges against him for violating a protective order. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that any alleged violation in Maine of the New Hampshire conditions order could not subject Defendant to prosecution because the order failed to meet the definition of a “similar order” of protection “issued by a court…of another state” pursuant to section 4011(a)(A). The Supreme vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court, holding that the New Hampshire order was a “similar order” under the statute. View "State v. Blum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the decision of the Appellate Division affirming the order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) requiring Plaintiff’s former employer (Defendant) to pay for medical marijuana used to treat Plaintiff’s chronic back pain.Plaintiff was issued a certification to use medical marijuana to treat his pain after sustaining a work-related injury. Plaintiff filed a “petition for payment of medical and related services” with the Board seeking payment from Defendant for the cost of the medical marijuana. Defendant opposed the petition, arguing that an order requiring it to pay for Plaintiff’s medical marijuana was barred by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) even if his use of medical marijuana were permitted by the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MMUMA). A hearing officer granted Plaintiff’s petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Appellate Division, holding (1) in the narrow circumstances of this case, there was a positive conflict between federal and state law; and (2) consequently, the CSA preempts the MUUMA as applied here. View "Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Appellant did not have standing to pursue a claim for visitation rights with her grandchild pursuant to the Grandparents Visitation Act (GVA), Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1801-1805.Appellant, the grandmother of the child at issue, filed a petition to establish grandparents’ rights pursuant to the GVA, seeking specific rights of visitation and/or primary physical residence of the child. The district court concluded that Appellant had not established standing because she failed to make a prima facie showing of de facto parentage as required under the GVA to proceed on her petition. On appeal, Appellant argued, inter alia, that the court erred in finding that she did not have standing to proceed as a putative de facto parent. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish standing to proceed to a hearing on her petition pursuant to the GVA or the statutory requirements of a de facto parenthood claim. View "Lamkin v. Lamkin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their three children while also approving a permanency guardianship as a possible permanency plan.After Parents’ parental rights were terminated, they appealed. Parents did not contest the district court’s determination that they were unfit as the children’s parents but argued that the court erred by determining that termination was in the children’s best interests because the court also ordered a permanency plan that included either adoption or a permanency guardianship. In affirming, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, under the circumstances of this case, termination of Parents’ parental rights was not inconsistent with a permanency guardianship. View "In re Children of Nicole M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the child support order and the associated part of the divorce judgment in this case and remanded to the trial court for clarification because the child support order and the judgment were inconsistent with each other and there was an error in the court’s establishment of Father’s monthly child support obligation.Father filed a motion to modify the parties’ amended divorce judgment. The district court granted Father’s motion to modify and modified his schedule of contact with the parties’ child and his child support obligation. The Supreme Court vacated the child support order and provisions of judgment governing child support, holding that the inconsistency in the child support order and the judgment, combined with the unsupported determination that Father must pay $200 per month in child support, made effective appellate review impossible. View "Papadopoulos v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal brought by Defendants challenging the superior court’s denial of their motion to seal or strike, holding that Defendants did not demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for appellate review of the court’s interlocutory order.Plaintiff, the respondent in an attorney discipline proceeding, filed a complaint against Judge Marian Woodman and Judge Nancy Carlson based on their actions and involvement in the disciplinary proceeding. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and sought imposition of sanctions. After Plaintiff filed a response to the motions the judges filed a motion to seal or strike certain paragraphs of Plaintiff’s response, in which Plaintiff made assertions about the judges and a family member of one of them. The superior court denied the motion. The judges appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal did not fall within an exception to the final judgment rule. View "Carey v. Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant’s complaint seeking to be determined a de facto parent of her grandson. The district court concluded, after a contested hearing, that Appellant failed to establish that she had standing to proceed to a plenary hearing. Specifically, the court found that Appellant did not present prima facie evidence that the child resided with her for a significant period of time or that the mother regarded Appellant as a parent to the child. The court further concluded that the best interest of the child was insufficient to confer standing on Appellant. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding (1) the court was required to dismiss the complaint because Appellant did not have standing to proceed with her de facto parenthood claim; and (2) the court did not hold Appellant to a greater standard than that to which an unrelated third party would be held. View "Davis v. McGuire" 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 failed to present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the record evidence supported the court’s findings and discretionary determinations.On appeal, Father argued that his counsel’s withdrawal two months before the termination hearing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that Father did not demonstrate prejudice from counsel’s performance. View "In re Child of Stephen E." on Justia Law