State v. Gregoire

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Gregoire

509 A.2d 114, 1986 Me. LEXIS 785

DecidedMay 20, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 509 A.2d 114 (State v. Gregoire) 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. Gregoire, 509 A.2d 114, 1986 Me. LEXIS 785 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Following a jury-waived trial in Superior Court (Kennebec County), the Defendant, Martin Gregoire, was convicted of gross sexual misconduct and unlawful sexual contact. The gravamen of his appeal is that the Superior Court failed to apply the appropriate standard to determine whether two very young witnesses were competent to testify for the State. Upon the promulgation of our Rules of Evidence, and beginning with State v. Pinkham, 411 A.2d 1021 (Me.1980), we have consistently recognized that M.R.Evid. 601(b) governs determinations as to the competency of witnesses to testify. See State v. Gray, 440 A.2d 1062, 1064-65 (Me.1982). Therefore, the Defendant’s contention for applying here the earlier standard of competence is without merit.

Finding no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s determination that these children were competent to testify against him, the entry must be:

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-waived trial in Superior Court (Kennebec County), the Defendant, Martin Gregoire, was convicted of gross sexual misconduct and unlawful sexual contact. The gravamen of his appeal is that the Superior Court failed to apply the appropriate standard to determine whether two very young witnesses were competent to testify for the State. Upon the promulgation of our Rules of Evidence, and beginning with State v. Pinkham, 411 A.2d 1021 (Me.1980), we have consistently recognized that M.R.Evid. 601(b) governs determinations as to the competency of witnesses to testify. See State v. Gray, 440 A.2d 1062, 1064-65 (Me.1982). Therefore, the Defendant’s contention for applying here the earlier standard of competence is without merit.

Finding no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s determination that these children were competent to testify against him, the entry must be:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 A.2d 114, 1986 Me. LEXIS 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gregoire-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack