State v. Diaz

556 A.2d 1098, 1989 Me. LEXIS 85
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided April 10, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

COLLINS, Justice.

Jody Diaz appeals from his conviction by a Superior Court jury (Penobscot County; [1099] Silsby, J.) of operating under the influence or with excessive blood alcohol in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1983 and Supp.1987) (Class D).

Because we are reviewing for obvious error, we do not find that the prosecutor’s improper closing comments concerning Diaz’s expert witness warrant vacation of the judgment.1 State v. Dube, 522 A.2d 904, 907 (Me.1987). Regrettably, however, we once again find it necessary to remind the State of its overriding obligation to see that an accused receives a fair trial, State v. Pineau, 463 A.2d 779, 781 (Me.1983), and admonish against the use of personal opinions concerning a witness’ credibility. M.Bar.R. 3.7(e);2 State v. Pendexter, 495 A.2d 1241, 1241 (Me.1985).

Furthermore, because evidence in the record supports the presiding justice’s determination that the intoxilyzer tests are “sufficiently reliable,” we reject Diaz’s contention that admission of the results into evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion. 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312(6); State v. Taber, 474 A.2d 877, 878 (Me.1984). Finally, in the absence of any objection by Diaz to the jury instructions, we fail to find “obvious error affecting substantial rights.” State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 467 (Me.1981).

The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Footnotes

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

State v. Diaz, 556 A.2d 1098, 1989 Me. LEXIS 85 (Me. 1989).

556 A.2d 1098 (State v. Diaz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Walsh
558 A.2d 1184 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1989)