Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment convicting Defendant of three counts of possession of sexually explicit material, thus denying Defendant’s challenges to the denial of his motion to suppress statements and digital evidence obtained by the police after they entered his home. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding that he consented to the police officers’ entry into his home, which resulted in the search and seizure of his computer. The Supreme Judicial Court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Defendant consented to the officers’ entry. View "State v. Marquis" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal from the dismissal of his motion to vacate as moot and remanded the case for further proceedings.While Defendant’s competency to stand trial was under consideration and his motion to dismiss the charges on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct was pending, the trial court held an ex parte conference with the prosecutor to discuss the alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Defense counsel was not notified of the conference and did not consent to the ex parte communication. The same jurist later found Defendant competent to stand trial, denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, and denied Defendant’s motions to suppress. Defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea. While Defendant’s appeal remained pending, the Supreme Court authorized additional proceedings in the trial court so Defendant could obtain the transcript of the ex parte conference. Defendant then filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and motion for the jurist’s recusal. The jurist recused himself. The court then dismissed Defendant’s motion to vacate. On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated all adjudicatory action undertaken after the ex parte conference and dismissed Defendant’s appeal form the dismissal of the motion to vacate as moot. View "State v. Bard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs, unlawful possession of a scheduled drug, and unlawful possession of oxycodone. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was found in the curtilage of his home and abused its discretion in denying his motion to exclude other evidence on the basis of a discovery violation. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the evidence obtained as a result of law enforcement officers’ search of bags they discovered within Defendant’s “curtilage” was properly admitted under the plain view exception and the inevitable discovery exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) the court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of a pharmacist because the State had only recently notified Defendant that the pharmacist would testify in the place of another pharmacist who had also been on the witness list. View "State v. Sullivan" 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), (iv). The Court held (1) the district court’s findings were sufficient to support the court’s conclusion that Father was unable to protect his child from jeopardy, was unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and did not make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Child of Nuradin A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal from a partial summary judgment entered by the superior court in favor of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC and M&T Mortgage Corporation as interlocutory, holding that the judgment that Kittery Point Partners, LLC (KPP) appealed from was not a final judgment.KPP filed a complaint against Bayview and M&T seeking a declaratory judgment that a promissory note and the mortgage securing it were invalid. The superior court ordered entry of a partial summary judgment in favor of Bayview and M&T. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed KPP’s appeal from this order, holding that the court was unable to determine from the superior court’s order whether the facts of this case constituted such an unusual circumstances that the merits of an interlocutory appeal should be considered before all pending claims were resolved. View "Kittery Point Partners, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

The district court did not err in granting Plaintiff’s petition for a protection from abuse order against Defendant, her boyfriend.After a hearing, the district court found that Defendant had abused Plaintiff and issued a two-year protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err or disregard substantial evidence in its ultimate finding that Defendant abused Plaintiff; and (2) the district court’s application of the best evidence rule, Me. R. Evid. 1002, was not in error when it required Defendant to allow Plaintiff to review either printed copies or the electronic versions of emails and texts prior to his cross-examination of her. View "Deah v. Cuthbert" 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 pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). The Court also affirmed the judgment of the district court finding jeopardy to the parents’ daughter’s health and welfare pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035. Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence in the record supported the court’s findings of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination of the parents’ parental rights was in their son’s best interest; and (2) the court’s jeopardy findings as to the daughter were supported by competent evidence in the record. View "In re Children of Alice R." on Justia Law

The Supreme 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) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Court held (1) the district court’s finding that Father was incapable of alleviating jeopardy or providing adequate care for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs was supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the district court’s other specific findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; and (3) the district court did not err in its unfitness determination or abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Eric K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her daughter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv). The Court held (1) all of the district court’s findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) given the court’s specific findings of fact, the court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness, nor did it abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest; and (3) there was ample evidence in the record that the Department of Human Services made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify the family. View "In re Child of Heather W." 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), (iv). Contrary to Father’s contention, each of the district court’s unfitness findings was supported by competent evidence in the record. Further, Father’s additional arguments that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the hearing on the petition to terminate Father’s parental rights and abused its discretion when it denied his attorney’s motion to withdraw were without merit. View "In re Child of Nicholas M." on Justia Law