State v. Wescott

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Wescott

515 A.2d 1153, 1986 Me. LEXIS 889

DecidedOctober 6, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 515 A.2d 1153 (State v. Wescott) 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. Wescott, 515 A.2d 1153, 1986 Me. LEXIS 889 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Charles Wescott appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Sagadahoc County, entered after jury verdicts of guilty on two counts of gross sexual misconduct, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(B) (Supp.1985). Wescott contends that the prosecutor’s opening statement improperly coerced the defendant into testifying and that the trial court committed obvious error in admitting testimony concerning the date of the offenses. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We conclude that there was no impropriety in the prosecutor’s opening statement and that the admission of testimony with respect to the date of the offenses did not rise to the level of obvious error, see State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 468 (Me.1981). Finally, on the evidence presented at trial the jury rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offenses charged. See State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

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.

Charles Wescott appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Sagadahoc County, entered after jury verdicts of guilty on two counts of gross sexual misconduct, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(B) (Supp.1985). Wescott contends that the prosecutor’s opening statement improperly coerced the defendant into testifying and that the trial court committed obvious error in admitting testimony concerning the date of the offenses. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We conclude that there was no impropriety in the prosecutor’s opening statement and that the admission of testimony with respect to the date of the offenses did not rise to the level of obvious error, see State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 468 (Me.1981). Finally, on the evidence presented at trial the jury rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offenses charged. See State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 A.2d 1153, 1986 Me. LEXIS 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wescott-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack