State v. Martin

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Martin

485 A.2d 244, 1984 Me. LEXIS 883

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedDecember 18, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 485 A.2d 244 (State v. Martin) 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. Martin, 485 A.2d 244, 1984 Me. LEXIS 883 (Me. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The Defendant, Joan Martin, appeals from her conviction of terrorizing, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 210 (1983), following a jury trial in Superior Court, Androscoggin County. The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove: (1) that the Defendant communicated threats dangerous to human life; and (2) that the alleged threats had the probable consequence of causing reasonable apprehension that the crime threatened would be committed. Upon reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the fact finders could have rationally found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of terrorizing. See State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.3d 715, 725 (Me.1979); State v. Porter, 384 A.2d 429, 434 (Me.1978).

Finding no merit in the Defendant’s other contention that an improper motive prompted the filing of criminal charges in this case, 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.

The Defendant, Joan Martin, appeals from her conviction of terrorizing, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 210 (1983), following a jury trial in Superior Court, Androscoggin County. The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove: (1) that the Defendant communicated threats dangerous to human life; and (2) that the alleged threats had the probable consequence of causing reasonable apprehension that the crime threatened would be committed. Upon reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the fact finders could have rationally found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of terrorizing. See State v. Ann Marie C., 407 A.3d 715, 725 (Me.1979); State v. Porter, 384 A.2d 429, 434 (Me.1978).

Finding no merit in the Defendant’s other contention that an improper motive prompted the filing of criminal charges in this case, the entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 A.2d 244, 1984 Me. LEXIS 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martin-me-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack