State v. Craft

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Craft

367 A.2d 612, 1977 Me. LEXIS 424

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJanuary 7, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 367 A.2d 612 (State v. Craft) 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. Craft, 367 A.2d 612, 1977 Me. LEXIS 424 (Me. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Willie Craft was indicted for a violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 3401 (robbery), waived trial by jury, but was convicted of larceny from the person (17 M.R.S.A. § 2102) after trial before a single Justice of the Superior Court. By making appropriate motions for judgment of acquittal the appellant has preserved for appellate review the issues argued on appeal, namely:

“1. The Court below erred in denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal made at the conclusion of the evidence.

2. The verdict is not supported by substantial evidence.”

We deny the appeal.

It is not disputed that the victim’s billfold containing over $500.00 was taken from his pocket. The fact finder could have believed that a young woman surreptitiously removed this wallet, tossed it to the defendant who immediately secreted it and, on being arrested shortly thereafter, was found to have “in the vicinity of $507” on his person. Additionally, both persons involved in this activity were positively identified by the victim.

The defendant has argued that, since there were at least two discrepancies between the trial testimony of the victim, a Norwegian merchant seaman, and that given when his deposition was taken, it was error to accept the former as true.

We have read both the trial transcript and the deposition. We find the dis *613 crepancies to be minor and not of that character and significance which would destroy the believability of the testimony heard by the single Justice. In any event, the weight and credibility of the victim’s testimony is for the fact finder, not the appellate court. State v. McDonough, 350 A.2d 556, 561-62 (Me.1976); State v. Donovan, 344 A.2d 401, 405 (Me.1975). Our duty is to determine from the entirety of the record if the verdict is adequately supported by believable facts. It is. State v. Burnham, 350 A.2d 577, 582 (Me.1976).

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

All Justices concurring.

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

PER CURIAM.

Willie Craft was indicted for a violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 3401 (robbery), waived trial by jury, but was convicted of larceny from the person (17 M.R.S.A. § 2102) after trial before a single Justice of the Superior Court. By making appropriate motions for judgment of acquittal the appellant has preserved for appellate review the issues argued on appeal, namely:

“1. The Court below erred in denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal made at the conclusion of the evidence.

2. The verdict is not supported by substantial evidence.”

We deny the appeal.

It is not disputed that the victim’s billfold containing over $500.00 was taken from his pocket. The fact finder could have believed that a young woman surreptitiously removed this wallet, tossed it to the defendant who immediately secreted it and, on being arrested shortly thereafter, was found to have “in the vicinity of $507” on his person. Additionally, both persons involved in this activity were positively identified by the victim.

The defendant has argued that, since there were at least two discrepancies between the trial testimony of the victim, a Norwegian merchant seaman, and that given when his deposition was taken, it was error to accept the former as true.

We have read both the trial transcript and the deposition. We find the dis *613 crepancies to be minor and not of that character and significance which would destroy the believability of the testimony heard by the single Justice. In any event, the weight and credibility of the victim’s testimony is for the fact finder, not the appellate court. State v. McDonough, 350 A.2d 556, 561-62 (Me.1976); State v. Donovan, 344 A.2d 401, 405 (Me.1975). Our duty is to determine from the entirety of the record if the verdict is adequately supported by believable facts. It is. State v. Burnham, 350 A.2d 577, 582 (Me.1976).

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

All Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 A.2d 612, 1977 Me. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-craft-me-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack