Jusseaume v. Ducatt
15 A.3d 714
| Me. | 2011Background
- Married Jusseaume and Ducatt from 1998 to ~2006; two sons born 1999 and 2000.
- Ducatt assaulted Jusseaume in Oregon, resulting in a 90-day sentence and three-year no-contact probation conditions.
- Jusseaume obtained a Maine divorce with sole parental rights and primary residence; Ducatt could contact the children only via supervised, quarterly visits.
- In July 2009, Ducatt asked the children about Jusseaume’s house layout, photos, and a chandelier; Jusseaume and husband relocated.
- Jusseaume sought protection from abuse; district court denied, later issuing a temporary order and scheduling a March 2010 trial.
- At trial, Ducatt testified; the court interrupted his testimony, did not allow Jusseaume’s cross-examination or rebuttal evidence, and entered no protection order; findings later suggested lack of clarity about intent to threaten.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-examination right in PFA proceeding | Jusseaume entitled to cross-examine Ducatt | Ducatt’s testimony sufficient without cross | Obvious error; remand for new hearing |
| Statutory interpretation of abuse definition 4002(1)(B) | Abuse includes placing in fear or attempting to place in fear | Need not show intent if fear was not proven | Remand for findings on actual placing in reasonable fear |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anthony R., 2010 ME 4 (Me. 2010) (review of preserved/unpreserved error in juvenile/abuse contexts)
- GENUJO LOK Beteiligungs GmbH v. Zorn, 2008 ME 50 (Me. 2008) (due process rights in adjudicatory proceedings)
- In re Dustin C., 2008 ME 89 (Me. 2008) (due process right to notice, counsel, rebuttal evidence)
- Balian v. Bd. of Licensure in Med., 1999 ME 8 (Me. 1999) (right to rebut evidence in licensing/discipline proceedings)
- In re Will of Paradis, 147 Me. 347 (Me. 1952) (necessity of sworn testimony and cross-examination in civil trials)
- Pays on v. Bombardier, Ltd., 435 A.2d 411 (Me. 1981) (rebuttal evidence must be allowed when resting party challenges evidence)
- Smith v. Hawthorne, 2002 ME 149 (Me. 2002) (reasonable fear analysis under 19-A M.R.S. § 4002(1)(B))