Legal Updates
State v. Galarneau III, 2011 ME 60
Category: Criminal Law
Issue: Could a prior conviction where the defendant had only received the services of
a lawyer of the day be used against him?
Holding: Prior conviction that created an enhancement of a operating after habitual
offender revocation was constitutional because the lawyer of the day advised the defendant of
his constitutional rights.
Commentary: One of the hottest legal issues is the use of prior convictions where the defendant
did not have legal counsel. Prior cases by the Law Court have established that the lawyer of the
day is not the same for purposes of a presumption that the defendant has received counsel as to his
rights. See State v. Oullette, 2006 ME 81. In this matter, it was clear from the record that the
defendant had been informed of his legal rights before pleading guilty.
Neudek v. Neudek, 2011 ME 66
Category: Family Law
Issue: Did the trial court properly dismiss the father’s motion to modify the parental rights
and contact portion of a divorce judgment absent a hearing?
Holding: The trial court improperly dismissed a motion to modify where a factual dispute regarding
the father’s behavior and relationship with his children was raised which required a hearing to
determine if circumstances had substantially changed.
Commentary: Another case in a line of Law Court decisions showing dismissals on motions to modify
absent hearings as disfavored. In this matter, the parties submitted affidavits that appeared to
show a disagreement as the circumstances. The Court did note that it was cognizant of frivolous
motions to modify and offered ways to discourage such actions.
Jusseaume v. Ducatt, 2011 ME 43
Category: Protection From Abuse
Issue: Was it error for the trial court to deny the petitioning litigant cross examination of the
respondent and was it proper for the court to hold that intent to place another in fear was
necessary to grant a permanent protection from abuse order?
Holding: It was obvious error for the trial court to deny the petitioner the opportunity to cross
examine the other party. The Law Court further noted that the 19-A M.R.S. §4002(1)(B) does not
require a finding that a party intended to place another in fear for purposes of issuing a permanent
order of protection.
Commentary: Once a party testifies, even a failure to raise an objection for the court's denial of
the ability to cross examine does not prevent the Court from addressing the due process right to
respond to and produce evidence. The Court further held that this is a "constitutional right." The
Court did note that it could be harmless error unless there is a showing that the case was
seriously prejudiced and was manifestly unjust. The Court also stated that the statutory
interpretation for Protection from Abuse matters does not require a finding that a party intended
to place another in fear of bodily injury.
But see 5 M.R.S.§4651(2)(A)(requiring a finding that a
party intended to harass in a protection from harassment matter).
Gillis v. Gills, 2011 ME 45
Category: Family Law
Issue: Did the trial court properly use VA disability benefits as income for purposes of
determining income and finding party in contempt and was it proper to order a conditional
withholding order on those benefits?
Holding: The trial court could use VA disability benefits for the determination of income for a
determination of ability to pay spousal support but any withholding order against those benefits
would be error.
Commentary: VA disability benefits, like social security, cannot be divided as marital property
but can be used as income. See Depot v. Depot, 2006 ME 25. They cannot be subject to
withholding order, however.
State v. Dodge, 2011 ME 47
Category: Criminal Law
Issue: Did the trial court properly confess statements based on involuntariness when the detective
stated that the conversation was between he and the defendant but later clarified those
statements?
Holding: The trial court's suppression of the statements before the clarification by the detective
was affirmed. The statements subsequent to that clarification were improperly suppressed.
Commentary: The Law Court found that the trial court had properly relied upon State v.
McConkie, 2000 ME 158 for the initial basis of suppression because of the misleading nature of
confidentiality of the statements, but the initial taint could be remedied by prompt corrective
assurances by the detective.
Cookson v. State of Maine, 2011 ME 53
Category: Criminal Law
Issue: Did the trial court properly deny the petitioner's request for DNA testing under 15 M.R.S.
§2138 of items belonging to an alternate suspect at a post-conviction review hearing?
Holding: The trial court's decision denying the petitioner's request was vacated and remanded
based on the failure of the judgment to contain findings of facts and conclusions under 15 M.R.S.
§2138.
Commentary: The Law Court not only vacated the judgment, but further clarified the legal
standard for arguing chain of custody under 15 M.R.S. §2138(4A)(B). In dissent, Justice
Alexander would have affirmed the judgment based on the failure of the petitioner to show that
the items requested to meet the judicial prerequisites for chain of custody.
Bond v. Bond, 2011 ME 54
Category: Family Law
Issue: Did the trial court properly deny spousal support and value and divide the marital home,
business, and debts?
Holding: The trial court properly denied spousal support and valued the marital assets and debts
including the marital home, business, and allocation of debts.
Commentary: The Law Court noted that absent an expert valuation of a business, it is difficult to
determine if the trial court erred on determining its value based on the information presented by
the parties. The Court also gently noted the importance of a table demonstrating the overall
distribution of property.
Ramsdell v. Worden, 2011 ME 55
Category: Family Law
Issue: Did the trial court properly grant a motion to enforce the provision of the divorce judgment
that awarded a spouse a percentile interest in a personal injury award?
Holding: The trial court was correct in enforcing the portion of the divorce judgment that
awarded a spouse an interest in a personal injury award for an injury that occurred during the
marriage and applied the proper percentage.
Commentary: In Doucette v. Washburn, 2001 ME 38, the Court determined that the income
compensation portion of a Worker's Compensation Settlement was marital, whereas the future
earnings portion was not. The Law Court made it clear here that the original determination of the
percentages affixed by the trial court in the actual divorce was not appealed and therefore, not a
proper issue before the Court. The Law Court further noted that it is entirely proper for a trial
court to set a martial percentage on a future award, once making the finding that it is marital.
Desmond v. Desmond, 2011 ME 57
Category: Family Law
Issue: Did the trial court properly deny a parent's motion for change of residency and fashion its
order to allow for the child to maintain contact with the non-residential parent?
Holding: The trial court's order denying a change of residency was not erroneous, however the
trial court did not properly address the urgency created by the separation of the child from the
non-residential parent. Order affirmed with direction to trial court.
Commentary: The Law Court, in an unusual order, issued a per curiam decision raising concerns
about the length of time and costs of litigation involving the custody of a minor child. In its
holding, the Law Court noted that evidence presented subsequent to the trial court's showed that
the original order was not being followed. The trial court was directed to ensure that the terms of
its order were followed. This is the latest in a string of cases from the Law Court raising concerns
about orders that make it easier to allow estrangement from a parent. See Copp v. Liberty, 2008
ME 97, Levy J. concurring; Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15.
