State v. White

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. White

455 A.2d 1387, 1983 Me. LEXIS 618

DecidedFebruary 15, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 455 A.2d 1387 (State v. White) 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. White, 455 A.2d 1387, 1983 Me. LEXIS 618 (Me. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The Defendant, Donald White, appeals his conviction of one count of theft by unauthorized taking (Class E), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353, following a jury trial in Superior Court, Waldo County. He contends that the presiding justice erred in admitting certain testimony relating to the ownership of timber which the Defendant was charged with taking. He also argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction.

We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

The challenged testimony related only to the corporate identity of the owner of the stolen timber. As we recently stated, “The name of the owner of stolen property does not constitute an essential factual element of the offense of theft; it is the fact that the stolen property is the property of one other than the defendant which is a necessary ingredient of this charge.” State v. Brasslett, 451 A.2d 890, 893 (Me.1982). The proof that this Defendant did not own the timber was in no sense dependent on the testimony now challenged. Whether or not error, the admission of such testimony was harmless. M.R.Crim.P. 52(a).

As to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review of the record fails to convince us that “no rational trier of fact could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d 1349, 1368 (Me.1981).

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The Defendant, Donald White, appeals his conviction of one count of theft by unauthorized taking (Class E), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353, following a jury trial in Superior Court, Waldo County. He contends that the presiding justice erred in admitting certain testimony relating to the ownership of timber which the Defendant was charged with taking. He also argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction.

We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

The challenged testimony related only to the corporate identity of the owner of the stolen timber. As we recently stated, “The name of the owner of stolen property does not constitute an essential factual element of the offense of theft; it is the fact that the stolen property is the property of one other than the defendant which is a necessary ingredient of this charge.” State v. Brasslett, 451 A.2d 890, 893 (Me.1982). The proof that this Defendant did not own the timber was in no sense dependent on the testimony now challenged. Whether or not error, the admission of such testimony was harmless. M.R.Crim.P. 52(a).

As to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review of the record fails to convince us that “no rational trier of fact could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d 1349, 1368 (Me.1981).

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 A.2d 1387, 1983 Me. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-white-me-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack