State v. Bouton

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Bouton

518 A.2d 459, 1986 Me. LEXIS 943

DecidedDecember 8, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 518 A.2d 459 (State v. Bouton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bouton, 518 A.2d 459, 1986 Me. LEXIS 943 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant, Bradley A. Bouton was convicted of the crime of murder by jury verdict returned in the Superior Court (Aroos-took County). On appeal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and claims error in the voir dire of the jury and in several evidentiary rulings. Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). With regard to the method of juror voir dire employed in this case, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding justice. State v. Durost, 497 A.2d 184, 136 (Me.1985). The issues raised with respect to evidentiary rulings are without merit and do not require discussion.

The entry is:

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant, Bradley A. Bouton was convicted of the crime of murder by jury verdict returned in the Superior Court (Aroos-took County). On appeal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and claims error in the voir dire of the jury and in several evidentiary rulings. Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). With regard to the method of juror voir dire employed in this case, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding justice. State v. Durost, 497 A.2d 184, 136 (Me.1985). The issues raised with respect to evidentiary rulings are without merit and do not require discussion.

The entry is:

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 A.2d 459, 1986 Me. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bouton-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack