State v. Lewry

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Lewry

509 A.2d 119, 1986 Me. LEXIS 777

DecidedMay 21, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 509 A.2d 119 (State v. Lewry) 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. Lewry, 509 A.2d 119, 1986 Me. LEXIS 777 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant George A. Lewry appeals his conviction in Superior Court (York County) of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, 29 M.R. S.A. § 1312-B(1) (Supp.1985-1986). On appeal, defendant contends that the court erroneously admitted into evidence the results of a breathalyzer test and erred in instructing the jury. In addition, he claims that the testimony of the police officers was inherently contradictory and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We find no error in the evidentiary ruling or in the jury instruction. Reviewing all of the evidence, we cannot say that no trier of fact could rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime charged. See State v. Durgan, 467 A.2d 165, 166 (Me.1983).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant George A. Lewry appeals his conviction in Superior Court (York County) of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, 29 M.R. S.A. § 1312-B(1) (Supp.1985-1986). On appeal, defendant contends that the court erroneously admitted into evidence the results of a breathalyzer test and erred in instructing the jury. In addition, he claims that the testimony of the police officers was inherently contradictory and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We find no error in the evidentiary ruling or in the jury instruction. Reviewing all of the evidence, we cannot say that no trier of fact could rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime charged. See State v. Durgan, 467 A.2d 165, 166 (Me.1983).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 A.2d 119, 1986 Me. LEXIS 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lewry-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack