State v. Modery

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Modery

549 A.2d 741, 1988 Me. LEXIS 341

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedNovember 1, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 549 A.2d 741 (State v. Modery) 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. Modery, 549 A.2d 741, 1988 Me. LEXIS 341 (Me. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant, Robert Modery, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, (Penob-scot County; Pierson, J.), affirming his conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or while having 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B (Supp.1987), in the District Court, (Bangor; Cox, J.).

Modery’s claim that the result of the breath test was improperly admitted against him is without merit. The District Court did not commit error in concluding that the police officer’s stop of Modery’s motor vehicle was supported by specific and articulable facts leading to a suspicion that a crime was being committed. State v. Garland, 482 A.2d 139, 142 (Me.1984). Modery’s contention that the breath test was tainted because the certificate stating the results was improperly notarized is without merit. In addition, the District Court did not err in denying Modery’s motion for a new trial. State v. Preston, 521 A.2d 305, 306-07 (Me.1987).

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, Robert Modery, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, (Penob-scot County; Pierson, J.), affirming his conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or while having 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B (Supp.1987), in the District Court, (Bangor; Cox, J.).

Modery’s claim that the result of the breath test was improperly admitted against him is without merit. The District Court did not commit error in concluding that the police officer’s stop of Modery’s motor vehicle was supported by specific and articulable facts leading to a suspicion that a crime was being committed. State v. Garland, 482 A.2d 139, 142 (Me.1984). Modery’s contention that the breath test was tainted because the certificate stating the results was improperly notarized is without merit. In addition, the District Court did not err in denying Modery’s motion for a new trial. State v. Preston, 521 A.2d 305, 306-07 (Me.1987).

The entry is:

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 A.2d 741, 1988 Me. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-modery-me-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack