State v. McFarland
This text of 440 A.2d 1058 (State v. McFarland) 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.
Opinion
The defendant was convicted of trafficking in a schedule W drug, a class B offense, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103 (Supp.1981), following a jury trial in Superior Court (Cumberland County). On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because a description of the trafficker recorded by a police officer at the time of the illegal sale differed from the description of the defendant’s then appearance given by two defense witnesses at trial.
The weight of identification evidence is a question for the jury. State v. St. Onge, Me., 392 A.2d 47, 52 (1978).
The jury had the opportunity, not available to us on appeal, of viewing the defendant’s physical appearance at the time of trial. On this record, we cannot say that it was irrational for the jury to conclude that the defendant did fit the description in the contemporaneous police report. The jury might also have been persuasively influenced by the positiveness of the reporting officer’s in-court identification.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
440 A.2d 1058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcfarland-me-1982.