State v. Paul

539 A.2d 216, 1988 Me. LEXIS 104
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided April 5, 1988·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The defendants, Richard Paul and Charles Smith, appeal from their convictions of burglary (17-A M.R.S.A. § 401 (1983 & Supp.1987)) and theft (17-A M.R.S. A. § 353 (1983)) following a jury trial in Superior Court (Penobscot County). Contrary to their contentions on appeal, we conclude that the trial court acted within the limits of its discretion in its ruling as to the prior convictions that were admissible under M.R.Evid. 609(a), State v. Gervais, 394 A.2d 1183, 1187 (Me.1978); that the trial court did not err in excluding defendants’ proffer of the details of their prior convictions, see State v. Chase, 490 A.2d 208, 210 (Me.1985); State v. Carmichael, 395 A.2d 826, 828 (Me.1978); and that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offenses charged. 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

State v. Paul, 539 A.2d 216, 1988 Me. LEXIS 104 (Me. 1988).

539 A.2d 216 (State v. Paul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Gervais
394 A.2d 1183 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1978)
State v. Carmichael
395 A.2d 826 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1978)
State v. Barry
495 A.2d 825 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1985)
State v. Chase
490 A.2d 208 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1985)