Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner filed a petition in the superior court challenging a disciplinary decision by the Department of Corrections. The superior court dismissed the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to state a claim where the court could not “determine its jurisdiction in the absence of its determination of the date of the final agency action.” Petitioner later filed a motion pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the order dismissing his petition. The superior court denied the Rule 60(b) motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the superior court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the court improperly required that the petition include content not statutorily required and presumed a lack of jurisdiction without a basis to do so. Remanded. View "Mutty v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of unlawful possession of schedule W drugs, preserving his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of drugs that he was carrying in a body cavity because law enforcement officers exceeded the authority granted them by two search warrants explicitly authorizing a search of Defendant’s person. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of, inter alia, intentional or knowing, or depraved indifference murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years in prison for murder and ten years in prison for hindering apprehension or prosecution, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the judgment should be vacated because he was deprived of a fair trial due to the alleged perjured testimony from certain witnesses. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of a fair trial. View "State v. True" on Justia Law

The district court issued a warrant authorizing officers to search Defendant’s residence. The search resulted in the seizure of container of “Molotov cocktails” and a handgun. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence arguing that the search warrant was tainted by an unlawful initial search relying on an affidavit that failed to supply probable cause that evidence of illegal drug activity would be found at the property. The superior court denied the motion to suppress. Pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, Defendant was convicted of one count of arson and two counts of criminal threatening. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that, because it was objectively unreasonable for an officer to believe the search warrant established probable cause, the court erred in applying the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issuing judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause for the warrant to issue. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful sexual contact. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment with all but fifteen months suspended and eight years of probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by rejecting Defendant’s request for a specific unanimity instruction and that the State made improper statements in its closing argument that, even in the absence of an objection, warranted a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the omission of the specific unanimity instruction was prejudicial to Defendant; and (2) the State made improper comments to the jury during closing argument. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Hanscom" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful trafficking in schedule W drugs. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the State’s closing argument that referred to Defendant’s prior bad acts, and the trial court did not commit reversible error by allowing the State to reference the events at issue without issuing a limiting instruction; (2) the trial court did not commit err in instructing the jury regarding constructive possession and accomplice liability; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The district court terminated Mother’s rights to her daughter after police discovered that Mother had taken a series of “shocking, graphic, and abusive photographs” of her daughter. In addition, Mother declined to participate in reunifying with her daughter. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. Mother moved for relief from judgment, alleging that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Mother failed to meet her burden of proving that counsel was ineffective. Further, the Court took this opportunity to clarify the emerging process for post-judgment review of judgments terminating parental rights. View "In re Alexandria C." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts of gross sexual assault and six counts of unlawful sexual contact. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of inculpatory statements he made during a police interview. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that the totality of the circumstances rendered Defendant’s incriminating statements involuntary as a matter of law, and therefore, the suppression court erred when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence of those incriminating statements. Remanded for a new trial. View "Maine v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with terrorizing and criminal restraint with a dangerous weapon. Petitioner was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and committed to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services. A decade later, Petitioner filed a petition for discharge from custody. The superior court denied the petition for discharge after a hearing, finding that Petitioner remained afflicted with a mental disease or defect that rendered her dangerous to herself, to others, and to property. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err by denying Petitioner’s petition for discharge because the evidence did not compel a finding that Petitioner may be discharged without likelihood that she will cause injury to herself or others due to a mental disease or defect. View "Beal v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained during his detention and arrest, arguing that the detention was not supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct justifying the officer’s detention of Defendant. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of operating under the influence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing to warrant the detention of Defendant. View "State v. Gerry" on Justia Law