Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder and his sentence of fifty years in prison, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement while walking them through his home. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to suppress a video recording of a walk-through of the crime scene, as there was no police misconduct in the interviews and walk-through with Defendant; (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; (3) did not commit obvious error in not instructing the jury on concurrent causation; and (4) did not misapply legal principles or abuse its sentencing power in setting the basic sentence. View "State v. Athayde" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for operating under the influence, entered after a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.After a trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of operating under the influence and of having a blood-alcohol level of .15 grams or more per 210 liters of breath at the time of the offense. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror based on implied bias; and (2) did not violate Defendant's constitutional rights by factoring into her sentence the court's view that her testimony was untruthful without making perjury findings. View "State v. Hemminger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for certain domestic violence incidents, including possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury convicted him of six offenses Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for sanctions for the State’s alleged discovery violations; (2) the trial court did not commit obvious error by admitting testimony of a police officer, including certain statements under Me. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an unauthenticated letter that Defendant claimed was written on behalf of the victim; (4) the court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to dismiss because of the makeup of the jury venire; and (5) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have rationally found that every element of each count Defendant was convicted of was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court suppressing Defendant's blood test results in the State's prosecution of Defendant for operating under the influence, holding that the findings of the court did not support its legal conclusion that Defendant did not voluntarily give his consent.In suppressing the blood test results the trial court concluded that the blood draw was a result of simple acquiescence to the trooper's authority. On appeal, the State argued that the trial court erred in concluding that Defendant did not voluntarily consent to the blood draw. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed and reversed the the trial court's order suppressing the evidence, holding that, in the totality of the circumstances, holding that Defendant's response to the trooper's request objectively manifested free and voluntary consent. View "State v. Croteau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights as to his child, holding that Father was not denied due process and that Father failed to prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.After a hearing, the district court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child finding that the parents were unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy or to take responsibility for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that termination was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's decision to accept a proposed order and findings only from the Department of Health and Human Services did not affect the outcome of the case; and (2) Father was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "In re Child of Kenneth S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of intentional or knowing murder, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to comply with the Interstate Compact on Detainers and violated his constitutional rights by holding bench conferences in the hallway and by denying his motion to represent himself. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Compact; (2) Defendant failed to show obvious error on his argument that holding bench conferences in the hallway violated his public trial rights; and (3) the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's mid-trial request to represent himself. View "State v. Reeves" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court denying the motion to compel arbitration brought by Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC (collectively, Uber) in this action brought by Patricia Sarchi, a user of Uber's ride-sharing service, and the Maine Human Rights Commission, holding that the superior court did not err.Plaintiffs brought this action against Uber for violating the Maine Human Rights Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4592(8), 4633(2), after Sarchi, who was blind, was refused a ride because of her guide dog. Uber moved to compel Sarchi to arbitrate and to dismiss or stay the action pending arbitration. The motion court denied the motion to compel, concluding that Sarchi did not become bound by the terms and conditions of Uber's user agreement. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Sarchi was not bound by the terms. View "Sarchi v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting the motion of Defendant, Plaintiff's former employer, to dismiss Plaintiff's disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims as time-barred under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4551-4634, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging two counts under the Americans with Disabilities Act and two counts under the MHRA. A federal district court dismissed the first two counts and remanded the MHRA counts to the superior court. On remand, the superior court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the action was not commenced within two years after the act of unlawful discrimination complained of, and therefore, the superior court properly determined that Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim was not commenced within he two-year statute of limitations under the MHRA. View "Berounsky v. Oceanside Rubbish, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered in the superior court in favor of Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and discharge, holding that there was no error.In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, her former employer, violated the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 26 831-840; the Maine Human Rights Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4551-4634; and Me. Rev. Stat. 26 570. The court granted Defendant summary judgment on all counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment in favor of Defendant was appropriate; and (2) the court did not err in denying Plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) because Defendant's electronic service did not violate Plaintiff's right to due process. View "Handlin v. Broadreach Public Relations, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction for intentional or knowing murder entered in the trial court following a jury trial, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and statements that were obtained in violation of Defendant's constitutional rights.In denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court determined that the searches of Defendant's property were not unreasonable because the emergency aid doctrine supported the searches, that suppression would not be justified even if they were, and that Defendant's statements were made voluntarily. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that Defendant's rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Me. Const. art. I, 6, 6-A were violated, and that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Akers" on Justia Law