State v. Buckley

548 A.2d 505, 1988 Me. LEXIS 237
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided September 28, 1988·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The Defendant appeals his conviction of robbery under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651 and assault under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Silsby J). The presiding justice did not abuse his discretion in reserving his ruling on the Defendant’s Motion in Limine until the Defendant testified at trial. See State v. Chapman, 496 A.2d 297, 302 (Me.1985); State v. Dodge, 397 A.2d 588, 592-93 (Me.1979). We also find no abuse of discretion in the presiding justice’s decision to admit, as relevant evidence, the testimony of James Baker. See State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58, 73 (Me.1981). Finally, the State adduced sufficient evidence at trial to enable a jury to rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of the crimes charged, State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

All concurring.

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

State v. Buckley, 548 A.2d 505, 1988 Me. LEXIS 237 (Me. 1988).

548 A.2d 505 (State v. Buckley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Crocker
435 A.2d 58 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)
State v. Chapman
496 A.2d 297 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1985)
State v. Dodge
397 A.2d 588 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1979)
State v. Barry
495 A.2d 825 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1985)