State v. Waterman

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Waterman

409 A.2d 1312, 1980 Me. LEXIS 486

DecidedJanuary 17, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 409 A.2d 1312 (State v. Waterman) 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. Waterman, 409 A.2d 1312, 1980 Me. LEXIS 486 (Me. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant appeals from his conviction after jury trial of the crimes of burglary and theft (17-A M.R.S.A. § 401 and § 353). The [1313]*1313sole issue raised is the sufficiency of the evidence presented by a single eyewitness who identified the defendant as a person previously known to the witness by name and as the perpetrator of the crimes. Since the weight and credibility of the witness’ testimony is for the jury to assess, State v. Fournier, Me., 267 A.2d 638, 641 (1970), we need only determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Our review of the record shows that the testimony of the eyewitness was both “positive and credible”, State v. Trask, Me., 223 A.2d 823, 825 (1966). The witness had an opportunity to observe the defendant in a well-lit area for a considerable time. The witness identified the defendant to the police by name. There was ample basis for the acceptance of his identification of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

NICHOLS, J., did not sit.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Defendant appeals from his conviction after jury trial of the crimes of burglary and theft (17-A M.R.S.A. § 401 and § 353). The [1313]*1313sole issue raised is the sufficiency of the evidence presented by a single eyewitness who identified the defendant as a person previously known to the witness by name and as the perpetrator of the crimes. Since the weight and credibility of the witness’ testimony is for the jury to assess, State v. Fournier, Me., 267 A.2d 638, 641 (1970), we need only determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Our review of the record shows that the testimony of the eyewitness was both “positive and credible”, State v. Trask, Me., 223 A.2d 823, 825 (1966). The witness had an opportunity to observe the defendant in a well-lit area for a considerable time. The witness identified the defendant to the police by name. There was ample basis for the acceptance of his identification of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

NICHOLS, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 A.2d 1312, 1980 Me. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-waterman-me-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack