State v. Burrowes

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Burrowes

511 A.2d 439, 1986 Me. LEXIS 801

DecidedJune 18, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 511 A.2d 439 (State v. Burrowes) 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. Burrowes, 511 A.2d 439, 1986 Me. LEXIS 801 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Clifton N. Burrowes, Jr. appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirming the judgment of the District Court, Portland, • finding him guilty of operating a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol level ip excess of 0.10% in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B (Supp.1984-1985). Contrary to Burrowes’ contention, section 1312-B does not require proof of aggravating circumstances as a necessary element for conviction. See 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B(1) (Supp.1984-1985). Burrowes also contends the District Court erred in finding probable cause requiring him to submit to a blood-alcohol test. After a careful review of the record, we hold that the District Court properly found probable cause for the test. See State v. Smith, 379 A.2d 722, 724 (Me.1977); cfi Oliver v. Secretary of State, 489 A.2d 520, 524 (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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Clifton N. Burrowes, Jr. appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirming the judgment of the District Court, Portland, • finding him guilty of operating a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol level ip excess of 0.10% in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B (Supp.1984-1985). Contrary to Burrowes’ contention, section 1312-B does not require proof of aggravating circumstances as a necessary element for conviction. See 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B(1) (Supp.1984-1985). Burrowes also contends the District Court erred in finding probable cause requiring him to submit to a blood-alcohol test. After a careful review of the record, we hold that the District Court properly found probable cause for the test. See State v. Smith, 379 A.2d 722, 724 (Me.1977); cfi Oliver v. Secretary of State, 489 A.2d 520, 524 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 A.2d 439, 1986 Me. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burrowes-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack