State v. McLaughlin

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. McLaughlin

560 A.2d 574, 1989 Me. LEXIS 182

DecidedJuly 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 560 A.2d 574 (State v. McLaughlin) 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. McLaughlin, 560 A.2d 574, 1989 Me. LEXIS 182 (Me. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

WATHEN, Justice.

Defendant appeals from her conviction of disorderly conduct following a jury trial, in Superior Court (Kennebec County, Brody, J.). Defendant argues on appeal that: the trial justice erred in reserving decision on defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; the complaint lacks sufficient specificity to charge the crime of disorderly conduct; and the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of disorderly conduct.

At the conclusion of the State’s case, counsel for the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The Superior Court reserved decision on the motion at that time. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of disorderly conduct, the trial justice denied the motion. We have previously held that it is error for a trial justice to reserve decision on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the State’s case. M.R.Crim.P. 29(a); State v. White, 460 A.2d 1017, 1023 (Me.1983); State v. Smith, 389 A.2d 314, 315-16 (Me.1978). Because the record reflects that defendant was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the basis of the evidence introduced by the State, the error in this case was harmless. With regard to defendant’s remaining arguments, we conclude that the complaint is sufficiently specific, see State v. Creamer, 379 A.2d 996 (Me.1977), and that the evidence supports the verdict. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

WATHEN, Justice.

Defendant appeals from her conviction of disorderly conduct following a jury trial, in Superior Court (Kennebec County, Brody, J.). Defendant argues on appeal that: the trial justice erred in reserving decision on defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; the complaint lacks sufficient specificity to charge the crime of disorderly conduct; and the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of disorderly conduct.

At the conclusion of the State’s case, counsel for the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The Superior Court reserved decision on the motion at that time. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of disorderly conduct, the trial justice denied the motion. We have previously held that it is error for a trial justice to reserve decision on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the State’s case. M.R.Crim.P. 29(a); State v. White, 460 A.2d 1017, 1023 (Me.1983); State v. Smith, 389 A.2d 314, 315-16 (Me.1978). Because the record reflects that defendant was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the basis of the evidence introduced by the State, the error in this case was harmless. With regard to defendant’s remaining arguments, we conclude that the complaint is sufficiently specific, see State v. Creamer, 379 A.2d 996 (Me.1977), and that the evidence supports the verdict. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 A.2d 574, 1989 Me. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mclaughlin-me-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack