State v. DeVeau

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. DeVeau

522 A.2d 1305, 1987 Me. LEXIS 678

DecidedMarch 24, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 522 A.2d 1305 (State v. DeVeau) 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. DeVeau, 522 A.2d 1305, 1987 Me. LEXIS 678 (Me. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

In appeals consolidated for appellate argument the Defendants, Richard DeVeau and Wesley E. Irving, challenge their respective convictions in Superior Court (Cumberland County). Defendant DeVeau had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle with excessive blood alcohol and operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant Irving had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Defendants contend here that the results of blood tests were improperly admitted in their respective trials because of a lack of an adequate foundation for this evidence.

In each ease the testimony of the professional who took the blood sample was admitted without objection. In neither case did the Defendant object to the results of the blood test with the specificity required of him by M.R.Evid. 103(a). There was no obvious error.

The entry in each case is:

Judgments affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

In appeals consolidated for appellate argument the Defendants, Richard DeVeau and Wesley E. Irving, challenge their respective convictions in Superior Court (Cumberland County). Defendant DeVeau had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle with excessive blood alcohol and operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant Irving had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Defendants contend here that the results of blood tests were improperly admitted in their respective trials because of a lack of an adequate foundation for this evidence.

In each ease the testimony of the professional who took the blood sample was admitted without objection. In neither case did the Defendant object to the results of the blood test with the specificity required of him by M.R.Evid. 103(a). There was no obvious error.

The entry in each case is:

Judgments affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 A.2d 1305, 1987 Me. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-deveau-me-1987.