State v. Smith

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Smith

451 A.2d 653, 1982 Me. LEXIS 798

DecidedOctober 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 451 A.2d 653 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 451 A.2d 653, 1982 Me. LEXIS 798 (Me. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

After jury trial upon an indictment charging aggravated assault (Class B), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 208 (1980), Maurice Smith was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207 (1980). The only issues presented on appeal relate to Smith’s claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument included impermissible comment upon the election of the defendant not to testify and his claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument was calculated to inflame the jury. We disagree. Our review of the arguments of counsel satisfies us that in neither purpose nor content did the prosecutor overstep the bounds of propriety. See State v. Conner, Me., 434 A.2d 509 (1981); State v. Tibbetts, Me., 299 A.2d 883 (1973); see also State v. Reilly, Me., 446 A.2d 1125 (1982).

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.

After jury trial upon an indictment charging aggravated assault (Class B), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 208 (1980), Maurice Smith was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207 (1980). The only issues presented on appeal relate to Smith’s claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument included impermissible comment upon the election of the defendant not to testify and his claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument was calculated to inflame the jury. We disagree. Our review of the arguments of counsel satisfies us that in neither purpose nor content did the prosecutor overstep the bounds of propriety. See State v. Conner, Me., 434 A.2d 509 (1981); State v. Tibbetts, Me., 299 A.2d 883 (1973); see also State v. Reilly, Me., 446 A.2d 1125 (1982).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 A.2d 653, 1982 Me. LEXIS 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-me-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack