Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant for failure to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 1999 (SORNA of 1999), Me. Rev. Stat. 34-A, 11227(2), holding that, due to inadequate representation by Defendant's trial counsel, the court committed obvious error by not addressing the constitutionality of SORNA of 1999, as retroactively applied to Defendant.In 1990, Defendant was convicted of four counts of unlawful sexual contact, and in 1992, he was convicted of gross sexual assault. Neither offense required Defendant to register as a sex offender. After the Legislature enacted SORNA of 1999, Defendant 's two convictions became subject to SORNA of 1999. In 2018, Defendant was found guilty of failure to comply with a duty under SORNA of 1999. On appeal, Defendant argued that the retroactive application of SORNA of 1999 to require him to register for life violated the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that it could not be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the retroactive application of SORNA of 1999 to Defendant's 1990 and 1992 convictions did not affect his substantial rights by virtue of a punitive alteration of his original sentences. View "State v. Proctor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court committing M. to involuntary hospitalization for up to 120 days, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's decision to order M.'s involuntary hospitalization.The district court authorized M.'s hospitalization for up to 120 days, and the superior court affirmed. On appeal, M. argued that she was denied due process and a fair appeal because there was no verbatim transcript of her commitment hearing and that the record contained insufficient evidence to support the court's findings. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the opportunities afforded to M. to supplement the incomplete transcript were sufficient to satisfy due process; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision. View "In re Involuntary Commitment of M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the trial court's judgment on remand after Defendant successfully argued that his two convictions of felony murder and robbery violated his right to be free from double jeopardy, holding that the trial court erred by allowing the State to dismiss the robbery count on remand rather than merging it into the felony murder count.On remand, instead of the trial court merging the counts, the robbery count was dismissed by the State. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) when a trial results in multiple verdicts for the same offense, the appropriate procedure to prevent a double jeopardy violation is to merge, not dismiss, the duplicative counts; and (2) the trial court's failure to hold a new sentencing hearing on remand and conduct a new sentencing analysis pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 1602 deprived Defendant of a substantial right. View "State v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court after a jury found Defendant guilty of burglary and theft by unauthorized taking, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress portions of a surveillance video recording because other portions of the recording were not preserved and that the court committed obvious error by failing to intervene after several allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's finding that the State did not act in bad faith when it failed to preserve the remainder of the recording did not constitute clear error, and therefore, the court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) the majority of the prosecutor's statements challenged on appeal did not rise to the level of misconduct, and as to the remaining statement, the court's instructions clarified any misimpression that the prosecutor's comments may have created. View "State v. Chan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Defendant's deferred disposition and imposing sentence following his earlier guilty plea to trafficking in prison contraband, holding that the court did not err in admitting evidence at the termination hearing that had been suppressed in a separate criminal case.Defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in prison contraband, and the court deferred disposition on that count. Defendant was subsequently indicted on new criminal charges. The court granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from a police officer's search of his pocket on the basis that the search was unconstitutional. The State then dismissed the charges. In the first case, the State moved to terminate Defendant's deferred disposition based on his alleged new criminal conduct. Defendant sought an order continuing suppression of the evidence. The court denied Defendant's motion. The court then found that Defendant had violated the deferred disposition agreement and imposed sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the "sole purpose" of the exclusionary rule was satisfied by the exclusion of the evidence derived from the unlawful search in the dismissed criminal case, the trial court did not err in ruling that the suppressed evidence could be considered in the deferred disposition termination proceeding. View "State v. Hourdeh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court as a result of a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of two counts of manslaughter, two counts of causing a death while operating under the influence, and related charges, holding that the court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood draw taken at the scene of a fatal motor vehicle accident.Me. Rev. Stat. 29-A, 2522(2) directs law enforcement officers to test the blood of all drivers involved in a fatal, or likely fatal, motor vehicle accident without any requirement of probable cause before the blood draw. Defendant argued on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed but nonetheless affirmed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) Me. Rev. Stat. 29-A, 2522(2) violates the Fourth Amendment because it does not require that law enforcement have consent or probable cause to believe that a driver is impaired before drawing a person's blood; but (2) the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress because the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the search. View "State v. Weddle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant by the superior court on Plaintiff's claims of a hostile work environment and gender discrimination prohibited by the Maine Human Rights Act and unlawful retaliation in violation of the Maine Whistleblower's Protection Act, holding that the superior court did not err by granting a summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all of Plaintiff's claims of discrimination in the workplace.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the superior court did not err when it concluded that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment arising from sexual harassment, that he was terminated from his employment in retaliation for complaints he had made about other employees, and that he was the victim of gender-based discrimination. View "Johnson v. York Hospital" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of intentional or knowing murder, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his cell site location information (CSLI).On appeal, Defendant argued that the judge who issued the warrant permitting officers to obtain his CLSI erred in determining that there was probable cause supporting the warrant's issuance. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his CSLI, holding that the information in the affidavit was sufficient to support the judge's determination that there was probable cause to believe that Defendant was involved in the two homicides and that his CSLI would contain or constitute evidence relevant to the crime. View "State v. Marble" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the order of the superior court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for Defendant's cell phone account data and a search warrant for a codefendant's cell phone data, holding that there was no illegality in the search of Defendant's data and that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the codefendant's data.On appeal, the State argued that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrant issued to search the codefendant's account data and that the superior court erred by determining that neither search warrant was supported by probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order to the extent that it suppressed the evidence obtained through the two warrants, holding (1) the affidavit for the warrant to search Defendant's account data was supported by probable cause; and (2) given that Defendant failed to assert any reasonable expectation of privacy in the codefendant's account data, Defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrant to search the codefendant's data. View "State v. Warner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment entered by the trial court convicting Defendant of unlawful sexual touching and assault, holding that the court erred in allowing the State to introduce improper character evidence and that the prejudice suffered as a result of that error, when considered cumulatively with the effect of an instance of prosecutorial misconduct, deprived Defendant of a fair trial.Although the issue was not preserved at trial or raised on appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court examined the State's cross-examination of Defendant to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) on the record, prosecutorial misconduct plainly occurred, and the misconduct affected Defendant's substantial rights; (2) the introduction into evidence of federal probation violations was error and highly prejudicial to Defendant; and (3) the cumulative effect of the trial errors deprived Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Robbins" on Justia Law