drug test in Maine

2017Pursuant to the jeopardy order, “Upon request of the Department, mother shall promptly submit to random testing for drugs and/or alcohol by both hair and urine; test results shall be admissible in these proceedings.” [¶ 19] We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion or clear error. 7 State v. Hall, 2017 ME 210, ¶ 15 , 172 A.3d 467 .

2017Pursuant to the jeopardy order, “Upon request of the Department, mother shall promptly submit to random testing for drugs and/or alcohol by both hair and urine; test results shall be admissible in these proceedings.” [¶ 19] We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion or clear error. 7 State v. Hall, 2017 ME 210, ¶ 15 , 172 A.3d 467 .

2023See United States v. McGhee, 532 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Although incarcerated before trial, [the accused] was incarcerated only because the magistrate judge revoked his release after failing a drug test and lying under oath.

2020See In re Joshua B., 2001 ME 115, ¶ 10 , 776 A.2d 1240 (explaining the obvious error standard and noting that a “party claiming error must demonstrate prejudice from the error”).

2020See In re Joshua B., 2001 ME 115, ¶ 10 , 776 A.2d 1240 (explaining the obvious error standard and noting that a “party claiming error must demonstrate prejudice from the error”).

2018The court admitted the lab certificate in lieu of the chemist’s testimony pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1112, which provides that a drug analysis certificate “is admissible in evidence in a court of the State, and gives rise to a permissible inference ... that the composition, quality and quantity of the drug or substance are as stated in the certificate, unless, within 10 days[’] written notice to the prosecution, the defendant requests that a qualified witness” provide live testimony of those facts. 1 17-A M.R.S. §. 1112(1); see State v. Navarro, 621 A.2d 408, 412 (Me. 1993) (“Once the defendant

1996See Cote v. Great No. Paper Co., 611 A.2d 58, 59 (Me.1992) (employee’s termination for failure of a drug test did not constitute grounds for reducing benefits); Cousins v. Georgian-Pacific Carp., 599 A.2d 73, 74 (Me.1991) (employee entitled to restoration of partial incapacity benefits despite having been fired for dishonesty; the reason for termination “is irrelevant if the employee sustained continued incapacity from a compensable injury”).

1996See Cote v. Great No. Paper Co., 611 A.2d 58, 59 (Me.1992) (employee’s termination for failure of a drug test did not constitute grounds for reducing benefits); Cousins v. Georgian-Pacific Carp., 599 A.2d 73, 74 (Me.1991) (employee entitled to restoration of partial incapacity benefits despite having been fired for dishonesty; the reason for termination “is irrelevant if the employee sustained continued incapacity from a compensable injury”).

1995See Stinson v. Physicians Immediate Care, 269 Ill.App.3d 659 , 207 Ill.Dec. 96 , 646 N.E.2d 930 (2 Dist.1995).

1995See Stinson v. Physicians Immediate Care, 269 Ill.App.3d 659 , 207 Ill.Dec. 96 , 646 N.E.2d 930 (2 Dist.1995).