| State v. Conroy |
| Citation: 2020 ME 22 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Ellen A. Gorman Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part Defendant's judgment of conviction of gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, sexual abuse of a minor, and unlawful sexual touching, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions of gross sexual assault and unlawful sexual contact. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for sexual abuse of a minor and unlawful sexual touching; and (2) because the State did not present any evidence that Defendant, a substitute teacher, possessed the requisite authority over the victim, a student, at the time that he committed the sexual act and sexual contact, there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant of gross sexual assault and unlawful sexual contact. |
| |
| State v. Williams |
| Citation: 2020 ME 17 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's judgment of conviction of two counts of stalking and two counts of harassment entered by the trial court after a jury trial, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial; (2) the judgment entered in Defendant's favor in a prior protection from harassment matter was not entitled to res judicator effect in this criminal prosecution; (3) the trial court did not err when it allowed one of the victims to testify that a lawsuit Defendant filed against the victim was dismissed with prejudice; (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal; and (5) the trial court committed no obvious error in failing to give three jury instructions. |
| |
| In re Child of Brooke B. |
| Citation: 2020 ME 20 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Mother's child was in circumstances of jeopardy to the child's health or welfare and ordering that the child remain in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, holding that Mother's due process right was not violated and that the court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. Specifically, the Court held (1) in the proceedings below, there was no error, obvious or otherwise, that deprived Mother of a fair trial or resulted in a substantial injustice; and (2) contrary to Mother's argument, the district court's supported findings established as more likely than not that returning the child to Mother's custody would cause the child serious harm or the threat of serious harm. |
| |
| In re Child of Nicholas W. |
| Citation: 2020 ME 16 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights to their child, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's findings of the parents' parental unfitness; (2) the district court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents' parental rights was in the child's best interest; (3) the rehabilitation and reunification efforts made by the Department of Health and Human Services were sufficient; and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting out-of-court statements made by the parties' child. |
| |
| In re Child of Ryan F. |
| Citation: 2020 ME 21 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Mother and Father's child was in jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in applying the presumption in Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2-A) regarding Father's prior convictions for sex offenses against children, nor did it impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the parents in violation of their due process rights; and (2) the district court's ultimate determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, of jeopardy was not clearly erroneous. |
| |
| In re Children of James B. |
| Citation: 2020 ME 14 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their children, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) competent evidence in the record supported the court's finding that both parents in his case were parentally unfit; (2) the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of both parents' parental rights was in the best interests of the children; and (3) the court did not err in finding that the Department of Health and Human Services had made reasonable efforts to reunify and rehabilitate Father's family, despite the Department's failure to create a written plan for Father. |
| |
| McLean v. Roberston |
| Citation: 2020 ME 15 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court determining Father's and Mother's parental rights and responsibilities as to their son, holding that the court must clarify or amend its findings as to Mother's gross income. In its judgment, the district court awarded Mother primary physical residence of the parties' child and set Father's continuing child support obligation. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) because the judgment contained no explanation of how the court determined Mother's gross income, the matter is remanded for the district court to consider the apparently undisputed evidence about Mother's receipt of fringe benefits and to justify or amend its calculation of Mother's gross income; (2) the court did not err in calculating Father's gross income by imputing income to him during his period of incarceration; and (3) because the court must clarify or amend its findings as to Mother's gross income, the portion of the judgment pertaining to attorney fees is also vacated. |
| |
| In re Adult Guardianship of L. |
| Citation: 2020 ME 13 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Joseph Jabar Areas of Law: Health Law, Trusts & Estates |
| The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the probate court denying L.'s petition for termination of his adult guardianship, holding that the court applied an incorrect standard of proof in contravention of Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 5-307(d). In denying L.'s petition the probate court determined that L. "failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his adult guardianship was no longer necessary for his safety and well-being." The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 5-307(d) sets forth the burden of proof applicable to L.'s petition for termination of guardianship; and (2) the probate court in this case failed to apply the proper statutory standard of proof in denying L.'s petition. |
| |
| Pushard v. Riverview Psychiatric Center |
| Citation: 2020 ME 23 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Donald G. Alexander Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered by the superior court in favor of Riverview Psychiatric Center on Plaintiff's complaint alleging a violation of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, 26 Me. Rev. Stat. 831-840, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. After Plaintiff was terminated from his employment at Riverview he filed the instant action. The superior court granted Riverview's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff was entitled to whistleblower protection based on complaints he made about Riverview's staffing policies, his supervisor's alleged mistreatment of another employee, and potential violation of patient confidentiality pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. |
| |
| In re Estate of Washburn |
| Citation: 2020 ME 18 Opinion Date: January 30, 2020 Judge: Joseph Jabar Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court denying Appellant's petition for formal adjudication of intestacy and appointment of personal representative of the estate of her former husband, David Washburn, on behalf of their minor son, holding that the probate court did not err. Specifically, the Court held (1) the probate court did not err in finding that David Washburn had sufficient testamentary capacity to execute a valid will; and (2) the probate court did not err by determining that there was no evidence that could sustain a finding of undue influence by a clear and convincing evidence standard. |
| |
