State v. Durfee

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Durfee

539 A.2d 629, 1988 Me. LEXIS 105

DecidedApril 6, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 539 A.2d 629 (State v. Durfee) 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. Durfee, 539 A.2d 629, 1988 Me. LEXIS 105 (Me. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant John Durfee appeals from an affirmance by the Superior Court (York County) of a judgment of the District Court (Springvale) finding defendant guilty of attempted theft by extortion (17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 152, 355(1) (1983)) and a criminal violation of the Consumer Solicitation Sales Act (32 M.R.S.A. §§ 4661-4670 (1978 & Pamph. 1986)). Defendant argues on appeal the insufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions and asserts that certain evidence of identification was improperly admitted because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Because the latter issue was not preserved by proper objection in the trial court, we review only for obvious error. Finding none, our careful review of the record persuades us that the factfinder could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offenses charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

This entry is:

Judgments affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant John Durfee appeals from an affirmance by the Superior Court (York County) of a judgment of the District Court (Springvale) finding defendant guilty of attempted theft by extortion (17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 152, 355(1) (1983)) and a criminal violation of the Consumer Solicitation Sales Act (32 M.R.S.A. §§ 4661-4670 (1978 & Pamph. 1986)). Defendant argues on appeal the insufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions and asserts that certain evidence of identification was improperly admitted because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Because the latter issue was not preserved by proper objection in the trial court, we review only for obvious error. Finding none, our careful review of the record persuades us that the factfinder could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offenses charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

This entry is:

Judgments affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 A.2d 629, 1988 Me. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-durfee-me-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack