City of Portland v. Arnold

STATE OF MAINE alee, A535 CUMBERLAND, ss Ao joe SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-00-055 Je | 5 04 Au "Ol AJA . Coe - Uf joer [5] CITY OF PORTLAND, Appellee vs. DECISION AND ORDER TAYA ARNOLD, Appellant The defendant appeals the denial by the District Court of the defendant's motion for findings and motion for a new trial. For the following reasons, the appeal is denied. The court agrees with the appellee that a record of the District Court proceeding is necessary to determine the issue with regard to a new trial. See MLR. Civ. P. 76F.! The defendant argues that she was not aware that the complaint against her involved a 3/6/00 incident until a witness testified at trial. She believed until the date of trial that the complaint concerned an incident which happened in May or June, 1999. The summons and complaint make clear that the date of the alleged offense was 3/6/00. The defendant has failed to show that evidence from Mr. Picard could not have been discovered before trial. See State v. Sheldon, 2000 ME 193 , { 7, 760 A.2d 1083, 1084-85 . 1 The defendant's affidavit, filed after trial, is not an adequate record. Because no electronic recording was made of the hearing in the District Court, the District Court Judge did not err in denying the defendant's motion for findings of fact. See M.R. Civ. P. 52(a). The entry is The Defendant's Appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The case is remanded for entry of judgment to the District Court. Dated: January 2, 2001 (peewee, ee Nancy Mills Justice, Superior court” Date Filed __06-19-00 CUMBERLAND Docket No. _AP_ 00-055 County Action APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT ~ ORDINANCE VIOLATION CITY OF PORTLAND TAYA ARNOLD VS. Plaintiff’s Attorney Defendant’s Attorney EILIZABETH L. BOYNION, ESQ 874-8480 DWIGHT A. FIFIELD, ESQ 773-0275 389 CONGRESS ST., PORTLAND ME 04101 257 DEERING AVE., PORTLAND ME 04103