State v. Fletcher

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Fletcher

445 A.2d 1013, 1982 Me. LEXIS 683

DecidedJune 2, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 445 A.2d 1013 (State v. Fletcher) 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. Fletcher, 445 A.2d 1013, 1982 Me. LEXIS 683 (Me. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

The defendant, Ernest Fletcher, appeals his conviction of three counts of unlawful trafficking in drugs, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103, following a jury-waived trial in Superior Court, Penobscot County. On appeal, the defendant’s primary argument is that the Legislature’s classification of cocaine as a schedule W drug and hashish as a schedule X drug, is arbitrary, capricious, and without rational basis, and consequently, those sections of 17 — A M.R.S.A. § 1102 are unconstitutional. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its unconstitutionality since all acts of the Legislature are presumed valid. See State v. S. S. Kresge, Inc., Me., 364 A.2d 868, 872 (1976). Upon review of the record in this case, we conclude that the defendant has not sustained his burden of establishing the challenged sections of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1102 are unconstitutional.

We find no merit in the defendant’s other claims of error on appeal.

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

The defendant, Ernest Fletcher, appeals his conviction of three counts of unlawful trafficking in drugs, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103, following a jury-waived trial in Superior Court, Penobscot County. On appeal, the defendant’s primary argument is that the Legislature’s classification of cocaine as a schedule W drug and hashish as a schedule X drug, is arbitrary, capricious, and without rational basis, and consequently, those sections of 17 — A M.R.S.A. § 1102 are unconstitutional. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its unconstitutionality since all acts of the Legislature are presumed valid. See State v. S. S. Kresge, Inc., Me., 364 A.2d 868, 872 (1976). Upon review of the record in this case, we conclude that the defendant has not sustained his burden of establishing the challenged sections of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1102 are unconstitutional.

We find no merit in the defendant’s other claims of error on appeal.

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 A.2d 1013, 1982 Me. LEXIS 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fletcher-me-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack