Me. R. App. P. 12
Me. R. App. P. 12
Advisory Notes - January 1, 2001
Rule 12(a) relating to the composition of the Law Court and required concurrences when deciding cases is based on M.R. Civ. P. 75D(a). There is no comparable provision in the criminal rules, but the new rule will apply to criminal and civil cases. It reflects current practice in hearing and deciding criminal and civil cases. Additionally, the rule recognizes that a qualified justice may participate in a decision even though not present at oral argument. This practice is anticipated to occur rarely and is consistent with practice in the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts. References to "consideration" are substituted for the current references "oral argument" in M.R. Civ. P. 75D(a). The last sentence requiring that a sentence to life imprisonment must be reversed if 3 justices support reversal, even with a 7 justice court, reflects the statutory requirement in 15 M.R.S. §2115 to that effect.
Rule 12(b) relating to sessions of the Law Court is based on M.R. Civ. P. 75D(b). There is no comparable provision in the criminal rules. The court shall hold sessions for decision-making at times and places determined by the Chief Justice. M.R. Civ. P. 75D(b) required that such determinations of times and places be announced before July 1 of each year. However, with the continuous operation of the Law Court, requiring any particular deadline for determination of times and places by the Chief Justice appears to serve no purpose.
Advisory Notes - 2004
The added M.R. App. P. 12(c) addresses the various forms for reporting decisions by the Law Court. A signed opinion is an opinion of the Law Court, including all of the justices who join the opinion, although it is issued by the individual justice named at the start of the opinion. A per curiam opinion is likewise an opinion of all of the justices in the panel who join the opinion, although it is not signed by any particular justice. Both signed opinions and per curiam opinions receive an official citation number, e.g., 2004 ME 108, and become part of the permanent record of decisions of the Law Court, being published on the Judicial Branch website and in print versions of the Maine Reports.
The discussion of a memorandum of decision replaces Administrative Orders issued in 1989. A memorandum of decision decides a case and governs any future proceedings in that case, but it does not establish precedent for other cases and will not be published on the Judicial Branch website or in the Maine Reports. A memorandum of decision has a separate citation format, e.g., Mem 04-128. However, except where relevant to the history of the particular case addressed by the memorandum of decision, a memorandum of decision has no precedential value and should not be cited as precedent in legal briefs or memoranda or in judicial opinions in unrelated proceedings.
A memorandum of decision may be used to decide cases in which the law governing resolution of the case is clear and no legal principle is being newly established or modified. A memorandum of decision may affirm, vacate or modify the judgment or decision being reviewed. Its function is to provide a succinct explanation of the Law Court's decision to the trial court and the parties to the appeal. The fact that a case merits a memorandum of decision does not suggest that the decision is not important or not relevant to future related proceedings. For example, in the criminal case context, a memorandum decision continues to be highly relevant when, subsequent to the decision, the defendant seeks to collaterally attack the underlying criminal judgment at the state level by way of post-conviction review (15 M.R.S. ch. 305-A) or at the federal level by way of habeas corpus ( 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ).
Advisory Note - July 2008
The direction [removed from the rule] that a judgment imposing a life sentence be reversed if three justices concur supporting a reversal was based on a sentence stating a similar requirement that appeared in 15 M.R.S. §2115(2007). In 2008, the Legislature amended § 2115 to remove that sentence and eliminate the possibility that a judgment imposing a life sentence could be vacated by a minority vote of the Court. PL 2008, ch 475.
The three justices provision in § 2115 was never intended to require that a judgment be vacated on a minority vote on the seven-member Court. The provision that three votes could vacate a conviction that had resulted in a life sentence was added to the law when the size of the Supreme Judicial Court was reduced from eight members to six members in 1929. Prior to that time, the voting requirements regarding a life sentence were stated in the Revised Statutes of 1916, c. 136, § 28. That section provided, in pertinent part, that on appeal by any person convicted of "any offense for which the punishment is imprisonment for life . . . the concurrence of a majority of the justices shall be necessary to [order a new trial]."
As part of the creation of the statewide Superior Court, P.L. 1929, c. 141 was enacted. Section 1 of chapter 141 reduced the size of the Supreme Judicial Court from eight members to six members. Section 3 amended R.S. 136, § 28 to provide that in the case of a person convicted of "any offense for which the punishment is imprisonment for life . . . if 3 justices concur, the motion [for a new trial] shall be granted." Adopting this provision as part of the law reducing the size of the Court from eight members to six members was intended to address situations involving an evenly divided court, not to create the potential that a conviction could be vacated upon the votes of a minority of the justices participating in the decision.
This law remained essentially in the same form, see R.S. 1954, c. 148, § 30, until amended into the present § 2115 by P.L. 1965, c. 356, § 63. Throughout all of this time the Supreme Judicial Court included a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.
In 1976, by enactment of P.L. 1975, c. 623, § 3 -A, the size of the Supreme Judicial Court was increased from six to seven members. No change was made in the voting requirements for vacating a judgment that resulted in a life sentence. As a consequence, with seven justices on the Court, it was possible that a vote of a minority of the Court could result in the vacating of a judgment that had led to a life sentence. However, that possibility did not occur in the thirty two years between the 1976 increase in the size of the Court and the 2008 amendment to § 2115.
Restyling Notes - June 2017
Rule 12 is subject only to minor editing for clarification and additional internal numbering in the restyling process.