State v. Saunders

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Saunders

565 A.2d 996, 1989 Me. LEXIS 258

DecidedOctober 13, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 565 A.2d 996 (State v. Saunders) 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. Saunders, 565 A.2d 996, 1989 Me. LEXIS 258 (Me. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Alfred Saunders appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict (Knox County, Delahanty, J.) convicting him of knowingly or intentionally causing the death of his wife.¹ After carefully considering all the objections raised on appeal and reviewing the record generally for manifest error, we affirm.

The prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument concerning the burden of proof (to which no objection was made), considered in context, do not rise to the level of manifest error. See State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 468-69 (Me.1981). Two other challenged statements were legitimate com-[997]*997merits on the facts in evidence. State v. Harnish, 560 A.2d 5, 9-10 (Me.1989). The jury instruction concerning the effect of the defendant’s failure to testify, resulting from the defendant’s request for an instruction on his silence, was in complete accord with our decision in State v. White, 285 A.2d 832, 836 (Me.1972). The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion under M.R.Evid. 403 in admitting various items of evidence, to which no objection was made. There was no manifest error in the admission (with the defendant’s agreement) of a series of letters written by the victim shortly before her death. See State v. Stack, 441 A.2d 673, 679 (Me.1982). The evidence was clearly sufficient to permit a jury rationally to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Alfred Saunders appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict (Knox County, Delahanty, J.) convicting him of knowingly or intentionally causing the death of his wife.¹ After carefully considering all the objections raised on appeal and reviewing the record generally for manifest error, we affirm.

The prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument concerning the burden of proof (to which no objection was made), considered in context, do not rise to the level of manifest error. See State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 468-69 (Me.1981). Two other challenged statements were legitimate com-[997]*997merits on the facts in evidence. State v. Harnish, 560 A.2d 5, 9-10 (Me.1989). The jury instruction concerning the effect of the defendant’s failure to testify, resulting from the defendant’s request for an instruction on his silence, was in complete accord with our decision in State v. White, 285 A.2d 832, 836 (Me.1972). The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion under M.R.Evid. 403 in admitting various items of evidence, to which no objection was made. There was no manifest error in the admission (with the defendant’s agreement) of a series of letters written by the victim shortly before her death. See State v. Stack, 441 A.2d 673, 679 (Me.1982). The evidence was clearly sufficient to permit a jury rationally to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 A.2d 996, 1989 Me. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-saunders-me-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack