Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her three children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). On appeal, Mother argued that the court’s judgment terminating her parental rights should be vacated because the court found that the Department of Health and Human Services did not make reasonable efforts to “shape and monitor” counseling for her. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the record did not support Mother’s interpretation of the court’s findings; and (2) there was competent evidence in the record to support the court’s findings of unfitness and that termination was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Danika B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the six children in this matter were in circumstances of jeopardy to their health or welfare if placed in the care of either Mother or Father. On appeal, Father did not contest the finding of jeopardy, but did contest the finding of an aggravating factor, arguing that his conduct was not “heinous or abhorrent to society.” The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings of jeopardy and an aggravating factor were supported by competent evidence in the record. View "In re Aliyah A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of domestic violence assault after a jury trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not presenting his proposed voir dire questions to the jury pool. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting voir dire and that the court’s rejection of Defendant’s proposed questionnaire did not deny Defendant the right to a fair and impartial jury where the questionnaire contained inappropriate questions and incorrect statements of law. View "State v. Roby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting Matthew Eastwick’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denying Cate Street Capital, Inc.’s competing motion to vacate that award after concluding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising from a settlement agreement. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the agreement contained clear contractual language of the parties’ intent to submit disputes to the mediator for binding arbitration; and (2) although the parties’ confidentiality had been compromised by the litigation, the court’s judgment incorporated the final agreement without ordering acceleration of those payments not yet due and without modifying any of its terms, including the agreement’s confidentiality provision. View "Eastwick v. Cate Street Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Sat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). The court held (1) the evidence showed that Father was unable, within a time reasonably calculated to meet his child’s needs, to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child; and (2) because the district court’s findings of unfitness were supported by clear and convincing evidence and because permanent placement with the foster family would be in the child’s best interest, there was no error. View "In re Damein F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket awarding the State and ConnectME Authority $406,852 in unpaid fees pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 35-A, 9216, plus interests and costs. On appeal, all parties argued that the lower court erred by concluding that the section 9216 assessment was a valid business excise tax. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the Legislature properly characterized the section 9216 assessment as a fee and not a tax; and (2) while the lower court erred by concluding that the assessment was a valid business excise tax, the error was harmless. View "State v. Biddeford Internet Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Parents to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The court held (1) contrary to Father’s arguments on appeal, the court’s findings were sufficient for the court to have found at least one ground of parental unfitness; and (2) the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Parents’ parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Keegan M." on Justia Law

A digital photograph transmitted over the internet is legally insufficient to constitute an “exposure” pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 854(1)(B), which prohibits indecent conduct. Furthermore, Me. R. Evid. 1002, requiring the introduction of original writings, recordings or photographs, when available, did not require the exclusion of the victims’ testimony about digital messages that they received from the defendant in this case.The victims in this case were five teenage girls who each received from Defendant explicit digital images. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant’s convictions for indecent conduct and remanded for an entry of a judgment of acquittal as to those counts, holding that section 854(1)(B) did not apply to Defendant’s conduct. As to Defendant’s argument that the court erred in allowing the victims to testify from memory about the digital messages, under the best evidence rule, the State was required to introduce the original messages, if available, or make a showing that the messages could not be obtained before offering secondary evidence in the form of witness testimony. The court’s admission of one of the victim’s messages and another victim’s testimony complied with Me. R. Evid. 1002 and 1004. But as to two other victims, the testimony and message were admitted in contravention of the best evidence rule. View "State v. Legassie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The district court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court held that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that Mother was unfit and that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Noah B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The district court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court held that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that Mother was unfit and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Marcus E." on Justia Law