86 A.3d 655
Me.2014Background
- Clark and McLane were dating partners; relationship lasted 2011–2012.
- On Jan 13, 2013, McLane sent an email with threats and plans to publish nude photos of Clark and to disseminate them via the web and work contacts.
- Clark filed a protection from abuse petition in Jan 2013; a temporary protection order was issued.
- During the Feb 2013 hearing, Clark testified that McLane’s threats would affect her employment and employability.
- The district court found abuse under the protection from abuse statute and issued a one-year protection order prohibiting contact and directing McLane to stop disseminating information about Clark.
- McLane appeals, challenging sufficiency of the evidence under 19-A M.R.S. §§ 4001-4014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McLane’s conduct constitutes abuse under 19-A M.R.S. § 4002(1). | Clark argues the threats and coercive conduct fall within § 4002(1)(C). | McLane contends the evidence does not meet the statutory definition of abuse. | Yes; conduct satisfies § 4002(1)(C) as abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- L’Heureux v. Michaud, 938 A.2d 801 (Me. 2007) (liberal construction of the protection statute)
- Cole v. Cole, 940 A.2d 194 (Me. 2008) (abuse can be found without physical harm)
- Ellis v. Ellis, 962 A.2d 328 (Me. 2008) (assumption of findings when not contested on appeal)