State v. Wetmore

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Wetmore

534 A.2d 355, 1987 Me. LEXIS 845

DecidedDecember 8, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 534 A.2d 355 (State v. Wetmore) 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. Wetmore, 534 A.2d 355, 1987 Me. LEXIS 845 (Me. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Joel K. Wetmore appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court, Aroostook County, entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of gross sexual misconduct, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253 (Supp.1986), claiming the court abused its discretion in certain evidentiary rulings and in denying his motion to dismiss this action based on a claimed violation by the State of M.R. Crim.P. 16(b). Our review of the record discloses that: (1) based on the offer of proof to the court as to the testimony of Wetmore’s expert witness, the court properly excluded that testimony (see M.R.Evid. 404(a)(1) and 405(a); State v. Arnold, 421 A.2d 932, 937-38 (Me.1980)); (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the testimony of the alleged victim; (see M.R.Evid. 401 and 403; State v. Franklin, 478 A.2d 1107, 1110 (Me.1984)); and (3) the court properly concluded that the State had not violated M.R.Crim.P. 16(b).

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.

Joel K. Wetmore appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court, Aroostook County, entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of gross sexual misconduct, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253 (Supp.1986), claiming the court abused its discretion in certain evidentiary rulings and in denying his motion to dismiss this action based on a claimed violation by the State of M.R. Crim.P. 16(b). Our review of the record discloses that: (1) based on the offer of proof to the court as to the testimony of Wetmore’s expert witness, the court properly excluded that testimony (see M.R.Evid. 404(a)(1) and 405(a); State v. Arnold, 421 A.2d 932, 937-38 (Me.1980)); (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the testimony of the alleged victim; (see M.R.Evid. 401 and 403; State v. Franklin, 478 A.2d 1107, 1110 (Me.1984)); and (3) the court properly concluded that the State had not violated M.R.Crim.P. 16(b).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 A.2d 355, 1987 Me. LEXIS 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wetmore-me-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack