State v. Sands

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Sands

410 A.2d 561, 1980 Me. LEXIS 500

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedFebruary 4, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 410 A.2d 561 (State v. Sands) 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. Sands, 410 A.2d 561, 1980 Me. LEXIS 500 (Me. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

After a jury-waived trial, defendant was convicted of burglary in violation of 17 — A M.R.S.A. § 401 (Supp.1979-80). The sole issue on appeal is whether the finding of guilt is supported by sufficient evidence. On the evidence, the trial justice was justified in finding that the dwelling of Meryle Cronkhite had been entered either by defendant or by one of the three young men who were with him at the time, that a theft occurred in Cronkhite’s dwelling, and that, soon after the break occurred, the defendant or his companions had possessed a flashlight, a pair of gloves, and some property that had been removed from the Cronkhite home. The trial justice could have properly concluded.beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant either committed the burglary (Class B), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 401(2)(B), or was an accomplice to that crime, as defined in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 57(3)(A) (Supp.1979-80).

The entry must be:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

POMEROY, J., did not sit.

ARCHIBALD, J., sat at oral argument and conference, but retired prior to the preparation of the opinion. He has joined the opinion as Active Retired Justice.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

After a jury-waived trial, defendant was convicted of burglary in violation of 17 — A M.R.S.A. § 401 (Supp.1979-80). The sole issue on appeal is whether the finding of guilt is supported by sufficient evidence. On the evidence, the trial justice was justified in finding that the dwelling of Meryle Cronkhite had been entered either by defendant or by one of the three young men who were with him at the time, that a theft occurred in Cronkhite’s dwelling, and that, soon after the break occurred, the defendant or his companions had possessed a flashlight, a pair of gloves, and some property that had been removed from the Cronkhite home. The trial justice could have properly concluded.beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant either committed the burglary (Class B), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 401(2)(B), or was an accomplice to that crime, as defined in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 57(3)(A) (Supp.1979-80).

The entry must be:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

POMEROY, J., did not sit.

ARCHIBALD, J., sat at oral argument and conference, but retired prior to the preparation of the opinion. He has joined the opinion as Active Retired Justice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 A.2d 561, 1980 Me. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sands-me-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack