State v. Foss

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Foss

422 A.2d 1012, 1980 Me. LEXIS 700

DecidedNovember 26, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 422 A.2d 1012 (State v. Foss) 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. Foss, 422 A.2d 1012, 1980 Me. LEXIS 700 (Me. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, Washington County, the Defendant was convicted of robbery (Class A) in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651 (Supp.1979). The sole issue on appeal is whether the finding of guilt is supported by sufficient evidence.

On the evidence, the jury was justified in finding that theft of $40.00 was committed [1013]*1013against the person of Robert Seeley either by the Defendant or one of three young men with him at the time, and that the Defendant and his companions used physical force on Seeley with the intent to prevent or overcome his resistance to the taking of his property. The jury could have rationally concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant at least was present at the time of the offense for the purpose of assisting in the robbery.

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 OF DECISION

Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, Washington County, the Defendant was convicted of robbery (Class A) in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651 (Supp.1979). The sole issue on appeal is whether the finding of guilt is supported by sufficient evidence.

On the evidence, the jury was justified in finding that theft of $40.00 was committed [1013]*1013against the person of Robert Seeley either by the Defendant or one of three young men with him at the time, and that the Defendant and his companions used physical force on Seeley with the intent to prevent or overcome his resistance to the taking of his property. The jury could have rationally concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant at least was present at the time of the offense for the purpose of assisting in the robbery.

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 A.2d 1012, 1980 Me. LEXIS 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foss-me-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack