State v. Linscott

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Linscott

402 A.2d 607, 1979 Me. LEXIS 769

DecidedJune 18, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 402 A.2d 607 (State v. Linscott) 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. Linscott, 402 A.2d 607, 1979 Me. LEXIS 769 (Me. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for aggravated criminal mischief in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805(1)(D) (1978), which imposes criminal liability upon anyone who “intentionally or knowingly . [djamages, destroys or tampers with property of another and thereby recklessly endangers human life.” Contrary to defendant’s sole contention on appeal, the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was justified in finding that defendant fired bullets toward a building on Matinicus Island, knowingly damaging the building, and that defendant thereby endangered the lives of persons whom he knew to be inside the building at the time and within range of the bullets.

The entry must be:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ., did not sit.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for aggravated criminal mischief in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805(1)(D) (1978), which imposes criminal liability upon anyone who “intentionally or knowingly . [djamages, destroys or tampers with property of another and thereby recklessly endangers human life.” Contrary to defendant’s sole contention on appeal, the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was justified in finding that defendant fired bullets toward a building on Matinicus Island, knowingly damaging the building, and that defendant thereby endangered the lives of persons whom he knew to be inside the building at the time and within range of the bullets.

The entry must be:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 A.2d 607, 1979 Me. LEXIS 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-linscott-me-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack