State v. Moody

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Moody

503 A.2d 706, 1986 Me. LEXIS 678

DecidedJanuary 23, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 503 A.2d 706 (State v. Moody) 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. Moody, 503 A.2d 706, 1986 Me. LEXIS 678 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

David Moody appeals his convictions of burglary, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 401, and of criminal mischief, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 806, entered after a jury trial in Superior Court (Penobscot County). We find no merit either in defendant’s contention, made for the first time on appeal, that the State in closing argument commented improperly on his defenses, or in his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. The record shows that the prosecutor properly based his closing argument on the facts in evidence; “we cannot say the comments ... manifestly deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Hebert, 480 A.2d 742, 751 (Me.1984). Viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crimes of burglary and criminal mischief. See State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

David Moody appeals his convictions of burglary, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 401, and of criminal mischief, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 806, entered after a jury trial in Superior Court (Penobscot County). We find no merit either in defendant’s contention, made for the first time on appeal, that the State in closing argument commented improperly on his defenses, or in his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. The record shows that the prosecutor properly based his closing argument on the facts in evidence; “we cannot say the comments ... manifestly deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Hebert, 480 A.2d 742, 751 (Me.1984). Viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crimes of burglary and criminal mischief. See State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 A.2d 706, 1986 Me. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moody-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack