State v. Van Sickle

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Van Sickle

515 A.2d 743, 1986 Me. LEXIS 876

DecidedSeptember 24, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 515 A.2d 743 (State v. Van Sickle) 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. Van Sickle, 515 A.2d 743, 1986 Me. LEXIS 876 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Daniel Van Sickle appeals his conviction of operating a motor vehicle after suspension, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2184 (Supp. 1985-1986), and after revocation as an habitual offender, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2292 (Supp. 1985-1986), entered after a jury trial in the Superior Court (Kennebec County). Contrary to his first contention, it was not obvious error to allow the prosecutor to refer to the defendant as “a convicted thief” during argument, because the evidence showed that the defendant had been convicted for the theft offense of receiving stolen property, 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 351, 359. See State v. Hinds, 485 A.2d 231, 237 (Me.1984). Nor was it obvious error to allow the defendant, at the prosecutor’s request, to stand next to a witness before the jury. The comparison was relevant and not unduly prejudicial. M.R.Evid. 403; see State v. Johnson 472 A.2d 1367, 1372 (Me.1984).

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.

Daniel Van Sickle appeals his conviction of operating a motor vehicle after suspension, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2184 (Supp. 1985-1986), and after revocation as an habitual offender, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2292 (Supp. 1985-1986), entered after a jury trial in the Superior Court (Kennebec County). Contrary to his first contention, it was not obvious error to allow the prosecutor to refer to the defendant as “a convicted thief” during argument, because the evidence showed that the defendant had been convicted for the theft offense of receiving stolen property, 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 351, 359. See State v. Hinds, 485 A.2d 231, 237 (Me.1984). Nor was it obvious error to allow the defendant, at the prosecutor’s request, to stand next to a witness before the jury. The comparison was relevant and not unduly prejudicial. M.R.Evid. 403; see State v. Johnson 472 A.2d 1367, 1372 (Me.1984).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 A.2d 743, 1986 Me. LEXIS 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-van-sickle-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack