State v. Viles

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Viles

461 A.2d 500, 1983 Me. LEXIS 721

DecidedJune 14, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 461 A.2d 500 (State v. Viles) 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. Viles, 461 A.2d 500, 1983 Me. LEXIS 721 (Me. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

[501]*501MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On appeal defendant for the first time contends that (1) the opening statement of the prosecutor improperly contained argument and (2) the prosecutor’s closing argument amounted to an expression of his personal opinion that defendant had lied in his testimony, thus infringing the ethical rule laid down by M. Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(v). See State v. Smith, 456 A.2d 16 (Me.1983); State v. Reilly, 446 A.2d 1125 (Me.1982). Since defendant made no objection at trial, these alleged improprieties constitute a basis for vacating the criminal judgment only if they worked a manifest injustice upon defendant. State v. Vigue, 420 A.2d 242 (Me.1980); M.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (“defects affecting substantial rights”). We need not decide whether the statements at issue were in fact improper, for in any event they were not serious enough to constitute a basis for vacating the conviction.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

[501]*501MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On appeal defendant for the first time contends that (1) the opening statement of the prosecutor improperly contained argument and (2) the prosecutor’s closing argument amounted to an expression of his personal opinion that defendant had lied in his testimony, thus infringing the ethical rule laid down by M. Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(v). See State v. Smith, 456 A.2d 16 (Me.1983); State v. Reilly, 446 A.2d 1125 (Me.1982). Since defendant made no objection at trial, these alleged improprieties constitute a basis for vacating the criminal judgment only if they worked a manifest injustice upon defendant. State v. Vigue, 420 A.2d 242 (Me.1980); M.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (“defects affecting substantial rights”). We need not decide whether the statements at issue were in fact improper, for in any event they were not serious enough to constitute a basis for vacating the conviction.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 A.2d 500, 1983 Me. LEXIS 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-viles-me-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack