State v. Nault

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Nault

541 A.2d 937, 1988 Me. LEXIS 165

DecidedMay 26, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 541 A.2d 937 (State v. Nault) 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. Nault, 541 A.2d 937, 1988 Me. LEXIS 165 (Me. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Ricky Nault appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Androscoggin County, entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of armed robbery. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651(1)(E) (1983). Contrary to his contentions, our review of the record discloses the totality of the circumstances justified the investigatory stop and the search of Nault’s car was incident to a lawful arrest, State v. LaPlante, 634 A.2d 959, 962-63 (Me.1987); the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the presumption of guilt that may arise on proof of exclusive possession of recently stolen property, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2) (1983), M.R.Evid. 303(b), LaPlante, 534 A.2d at 964, and properly denied an instruction on receiving stolen goods as a lesser included offense, id. at 965-66; and the jury rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. Id. at 963-64; State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me. 1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Ricky Nault appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Androscoggin County, entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of armed robbery. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651(1)(E) (1983). Contrary to his contentions, our review of the record discloses the totality of the circumstances justified the investigatory stop and the search of Nault’s car was incident to a lawful arrest, State v. LaPlante, 634 A.2d 959, 962-63 (Me.1987); the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the presumption of guilt that may arise on proof of exclusive possession of recently stolen property, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2) (1983), M.R.Evid. 303(b), LaPlante, 534 A.2d at 964, and properly denied an instruction on receiving stolen goods as a lesser included offense, id. at 965-66; and the jury rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. Id. at 963-64; State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me. 1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 A.2d 937, 1988 Me. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nault-me-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack