State v. Pierce

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Pierce

470 A.2d 796, 1984 Me. LEXIS 604

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 470 A.2d 796 (State v. Pierce) 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. Pierce, 470 A.2d 796, 1984 Me. LEXIS 604 (Me. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon (17-A M.R.S.A. § 208(1)(B) (1983)) resulting from a jury trial in Superi- or Court (Penobscot County). On appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and alleges that the presiding justice committed reversible error in instructing the jury. In reviewing defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Smith, 456 A.2d 1 (Me.1983). We may reverse the conviction only if we find that no trier of fact could have rationally found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Crosby, 456 A.2d 369, 270 (Me.1983). The record clearly reveals that the evidence presented to the jury was legally sufficient to support the guilty verdict.

With respect to the challenge to the jury instructions, defendant made no objection at time of trial and this Court’s review of the instructions in their entirety does not reveal any obvious error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights. State v. Earley, 454 A.2d 341, 343 (Me.1983).

The entry must be:

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon (17-A M.R.S.A. § 208(1)(B) (1983)) resulting from a jury trial in Superi- or Court (Penobscot County). On appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and alleges that the presiding justice committed reversible error in instructing the jury. In reviewing defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Smith, 456 A.2d 1 (Me.1983). We may reverse the conviction only if we find that no trier of fact could have rationally found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Crosby, 456 A.2d 369, 270 (Me.1983). The record clearly reveals that the evidence presented to the jury was legally sufficient to support the guilty verdict.

With respect to the challenge to the jury instructions, defendant made no objection at time of trial and this Court’s review of the instructions in their entirety does not reveal any obvious error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights. State v. Earley, 454 A.2d 341, 343 (Me.1983).

The entry must be:

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 A.2d 796, 1984 Me. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pierce-me-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack