2018 ME 151
Me.2018Background
- Department filed petition (Aug 2017) to appoint a limited public guardian for David under 18‑A M.R.S. § 5‑303; one‑day probate trial held Feb 22, 2018.
- A clinical psychologist evaluated David (one hour, Jan 22, 2018), performed cognitive testing suggesting dementia, reviewed medical records, and opined David needed a guardian because of repeated medical crises and poor self‑care.
- Psychologist testified at trial; Department also offered the psychologist’s written evaluation report, which the Probate Court admitted over David’s hearsay objection.
- Probate Court entered judgment appointing the Department limited public guardian; David appealed arguing (1) admission of the written report violated the hearsay rule and (2) insufficient evidence supported the guardianship.
- Supreme Judicial Court assumed underlying factual findings supported by record evidence, agreed the written report’s admission was error, but held the error harmless because the psychologist’s testimony and other admissible evidence independently supported the guardianship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of psychologist’s written report was hearsay error | Admission violated hearsay rule because report contained out‑of‑court statements and multiple hearsay | Report admissible under M.R. Evid. 703 as basis for expert opinion; even if error, harmless | Error to admit report in full; report contained multiple levels of hearsay and Rule 703 does not make underlying hearsay admissible |
| Whether expert could testify about conclusions based on other reports | Expert may rely on others’ reports for his opinion but not relay their substantive content as admissible evidence | Department relied on precedent allowing expert opinion to be admitted even if based on hearsay | Expert’s opinion admissible; underlying hearsay not admissible for its truth under Rule 703 |
| Whether erroneous admission required vacating guardianship appointment | Admission was critical to finding incapacity | Any error was harmless because the psychologist’s live testimony duplicated report and other admissible evidence supported guardianship | Error was harmless; judgment affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for guardianship | Insufficient record evidence to support appointment | Sufficient competent evidence (testimony + records) independent of report | Sufficient evidence supported appointment; court’s ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993) (Rule 703 permits an expert to rely on inadmissible information but not to convey the substance of another’s report as admissible evidence)
- In re Soriah B., 8 A.3d 1256 (Me. 2010) (expert report may be admitted only as the expert’s opinion if the court excludes consideration of hearsay within it for its truth)
- Malenko v. Handrahan, 979 A.2d 1269 (Me. 2009) (expert’s written report containing multiple levels of hearsay is inadmissible)
- In re Elijah R., 620 A.2d 282 (Me. 1993) (admission error may be harmless when evidence is duplicative of admissible sources)
- Guardianship of Smith, 17 A.3d 136 (Me. 2011) (abundance of other evidence can render admission errors harmless)