State v. Waters

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Waters

503 A.2d 1301, 1986 Me. LEXIS 682

DecidedFebruary 4, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 503 A.2d 1301 (State v. Waters) 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. Waters, 503 A.2d 1301, 1986 Me. LEXIS 682 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[1302]*1302MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Erich C. Waters appeals his conviction in District Court (Kittery) for operating a motor vehicle while having 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood. Waters argues that he was prejudiced by the State’s failure to elect at trial whether it sought conviction based on evidence that he was operating a motor vehicle “[wjhile under the influence of intoxicating liquor, ... or,” alternatively, “[wjhile having 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood.” 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B(1)(A) & (B) (Supp.1985-1986). The State, however, is not required to elect an alternative “prior to submission of [sic] the fact finder.” 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B(1-A) (Supp.1985-1986). The complaint, charging the two alternatives in the disjunctive, was not thereby defective and adequately informed the defendant of the charge against him. Defendant’s contention is therefore without merit.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

[1302]*1302MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Erich C. Waters appeals his conviction in District Court (Kittery) for operating a motor vehicle while having 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood. Waters argues that he was prejudiced by the State’s failure to elect at trial whether it sought conviction based on evidence that he was operating a motor vehicle “[wjhile under the influence of intoxicating liquor, ... or,” alternatively, “[wjhile having 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood.” 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B(1)(A) & (B) (Supp.1985-1986). The State, however, is not required to elect an alternative “prior to submission of [sic] the fact finder.” 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B(1-A) (Supp.1985-1986). The complaint, charging the two alternatives in the disjunctive, was not thereby defective and adequately informed the defendant of the charge against him. Defendant’s contention is therefore without merit.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 A.2d 1301, 1986 Me. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-waters-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack