State v. Curtis

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Curtis

503 A.2d 1285, 1986 Me. LEXIS 693

DecidedJanuary 30, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 503 A.2d 1285 (State v. Curtis) 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. Curtis, 503 A.2d 1285, 1986 Me. LEXIS 693 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Penobscot County, Carl W. Curtis, Sr. contends that his right to a speedy trial was denied and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of kidnapping, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 301 (1983), possession of a firearm by a felon, 15 M.R. S.A. § 393 (1983 & Supp. 1985-1986), and two counts of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 209 (1983), entered after a jury-waived trial. Our review of the record discloses no violation of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court could rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to and did use one victim as a shield or hostage; that the sawed-off shotgun he used was in fact a real firearm; and that his threats and actions with the shotgun placed both victims in fear of imminent bodily injury. See State v. Thompson, 503 A.2d 228, 232 (Me.1986); cf. State v. Littlefield, 389 A.2d 16 (Me.1978).

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.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Penobscot County, Carl W. Curtis, Sr. contends that his right to a speedy trial was denied and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of kidnapping, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 301 (1983), possession of a firearm by a felon, 15 M.R. S.A. § 393 (1983 & Supp. 1985-1986), and two counts of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 209 (1983), entered after a jury-waived trial. Our review of the record discloses no violation of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court could rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to and did use one victim as a shield or hostage; that the sawed-off shotgun he used was in fact a real firearm; and that his threats and actions with the shotgun placed both victims in fear of imminent bodily injury. See State v. Thompson, 503 A.2d 228, 232 (Me.1986); cf. State v. Littlefield, 389 A.2d 16 (Me.1978).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 A.2d 1285, 1986 Me. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-curtis-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack