Andrew M. Mead

Associate Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

📰 News & journal →

BA, University of MaineJD, New York University

Affiliations

On the bench with

⚖️ Robert W. Clifford ⚖️ Jeffrey L. Hjelm ⚖️ Donald G. Alexander ⚖️ Jospeh M. Jabar ⚖️ Ellen A. Gorman ⚖️ Jon D. Levy

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Turner v. Secretary of State
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011-02-15 · cited 7×
The case involved the Secretary of State's suspension of Michael Turner's commercial driver's license for three years after a blood-alcohol test showed a level of at least 0.04%. Turner sought judicial review, and the Superior Court vacated the suspension on grounds that the officer lacked probable cause to administer the test. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the officer had probable cause based on the odor of alcohol on Turner's breath combined with his admission to drinking one beer about 90 minutes earlier, even without signs of impairment or field sobriety tests. The court reasoned that the statute sets a lower blood-alcohol threshold for commercial drivers than for others and does not require evidence of impairment. It therefore vacated the Superior Court judgment and reinstated the suspension.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Ducasse
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010-11-09 · cited 9×
In State v. Ducasse, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of manslaughter and aggravated operating under the influence following a fatal head-on collision in which her blood-alcohol level tested at 0.19%. She appealed on the ground that admission of a manufacturer's certificate of compliance for the blood collection tubes used in the testing kit violated her Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because she could not cross-examine its author. The Superior Court had admitted the certificate after ruling its statements nontestimonial, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that the certificate was a business record containing neutral manufacturing specifications rather than scientific analysis or statements prepared for criminal prosecution, making cross-examination of little practical value under precedents such as State v. Murphy and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Dalli
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2010-11-04 · cited 5×
The case involved Richard Dalli, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter after stabbing and killing longtime acquaintance John Wheeler with a knife during an altercation at Dalli's home following a rejected sexual advance and while both had been drinking. Dalli, who had a long-standing diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder along with substance abuse issues and a prior criminal record, appealed his sentence of thirty years' imprisonment with all but twenty years suspended plus four years of probation, contending that the sentencing court misapplied principles in setting the basic sentence and abused its discretion in determining the maximum and final sentence. Following the three-step process required by 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C, the Superior Court set a basic sentence of twenty-five years based on the high likelihood of death from the conduct, adjusted it upward to the statutory maximum of thirty years after weighing mitigating factors such as remorse against aggravating factors, and suspended a portion with probation. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the sentence on de novo review for the basic term and abuse-of-discretion review for the maximum, finding the analysis reflected consideration of the offense's nature and seriousness without misapplication of principle or abuse of discretion.
criminal lawprocedure
Whalen v. Down East Community Hospital
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2009-09-15 · cited 8×
Dr. Whalen, an orthopedic surgeon on staff at Down East Community Hospital since 1979, sued the hospital claiming breach of contract after it denied his reappointment to the medical staff and ended his privileges following an investigation into peer review disclosures. The Superior Court ruled for Dr. Whalen, finding that the bylaws required two-year appointments and that he had received a full active staff reappointment, and it issued permanent injunctive relief. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and injunction, concluding that the short-term appointments were valid extensions of Dr. Whalen's provisional status as shown by the appointment letters, meeting minutes, and staff testimony, and that no breach occurred under the bylaws.
healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.

BA, University of Maine →BA, University of MaineJD, New York University →JD, New York University