Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments entered in two cases in the Unified Criminal Docket after a consolidated jury-waived trial. In the first case, the court found in favor of Defendant on the State’s complaint alleging that Defendant had fished without a valid fishing license. In the other case, the court denied the State’s petition for forfeiture of lobsters seized from Defendant’s boat. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the court did not err in concluding that the State had not met its burden of proving that Defendant’s fishing activity was unlawful; and (2) consequently, the court did not err by concluding that the lobsters seized from Defendant’s boat were not subject to forfeiture. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of the superior court, which vacated the district court’s order denying Mark Walker’s motion to set aside the default judgment in this small claims case. Because Walker appealed from the district court’s exercise of discretion in denying his motion to set aside the default, the superior court’s authority was purely on questions of law. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the superior court made certain factual findings that exceeded its authority and vacated the district court’s judgment based on facts it found independently, and therefore, the superior court exceeded its authority. The court remanded the case to the superior court with instructions to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in adjudicating the motion to set aside the default without a hearing. View "Taylor v. Walker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint charging him with operating under the influence (OUI). In his motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that because he had already been convicted on a complaint containing the identical charging language, forcing him to defend against the charge violated his rights under the federal and state constitutions to be free from double jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis, the two complaints did not arise from the same act or transaction and, therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not require the dismissal of the complaint at issue. View "State v. Martinelli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court modifying a divorce judgment to confer sole parental rights and responsibilities on Mother and impose conditions on Father’s contact with the parties’ four children. The court held (1) the district court did not misinterpret or misapply Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1653(3) in prioritizing the children’s safety and well-being when determining the children’s best interests; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in ordering Father to undergo sobriety testing before and during all visits with the children and to have a psychological evaluation and begin any recommended treatment before the children resume overnight visits in his home. View "Miller v. Nery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating after suspension, operating without a license, and operating an unregistered vehicle. The convictions were entered by the trial court after a jury found Defendant guilty. The court held (1) contrary to Defendant’s arguments on appeal, the trial court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the matter; (2) Defendant forfeited most of his arguments on appeal by failing to offer any legal argument with citation to proper authority; and (3) to the extent that Defendant adequately presented his arguments on appeal, they were without merit. View "State v. Salisbury" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Parents’ parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv), with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. The court held that, given the court’s findings of fact that were supported by competent evidence in the record, the court adequately explained how the deficits of the parents rendered each parent unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child in time to meet his needs and adequately explained how Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child. View "In re Ryan G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating her parental rights to her daughter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a). Given the district court’s findings and the court’s other extensive, specific findings of fact, all of which were supported by competent evidence in the record, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in its determination of unfitness, nor did it err or 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. View "In re Anastasia M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv). On appeal, Father argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance and challenged the district court’s determination that termination was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Father failed to present a prima facie case of attorney ineffectiveness; and (2) the evidence in the record supported the district court’s findings and discretionary determination that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Tyrel L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s and Mother’s parental rights to their son pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The district court found that the parents failed to take responsibility for their son, they were unwilling or unable to protect him from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs, they failed to make a good faith effort toward reunification, and termination of the parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was competent evidence in the record for all of the district court’s findings and that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Richard M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, following a two-day jury trial. Contrary to the arguments raised by Defendant on appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by allowing testimony about statements of an unavailable witness; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts on the two counts of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law