State v. Wickham

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Wickham

510 A.2d 519, 1986 Me. LEXIS 762

DecidedMay 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 510 A.2d 519 (State v. Wickham) 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. Wickham, 510 A.2d 519, 1986 Me. LEXIS 762 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Henry Wickham, Jr. appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County) entered on a jury verdict convicting him of robbery, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651(1) (1983) and criminal mischief, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 806 (1983). Contrary to Wick-ham’s first contention, the trial justice acted well within his discretion in sustaining the State’s general objection to defense counsel’s question of the victim concerning the return of her money. R. Field & P. Murray, Maine Evidence § 103.2 (1976); see M.R.Evid. 103. Wickham also contends the evidence was insufficient to support his robbery conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense of robbery. 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.

Henry Wickham, Jr. appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County) entered on a jury verdict convicting him of robbery, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651(1) (1983) and criminal mischief, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 806 (1983). Contrary to Wick-ham’s first contention, the trial justice acted well within his discretion in sustaining the State’s general objection to defense counsel’s question of the victim concerning the return of her money. R. Field & P. Murray, Maine Evidence § 103.2 (1976); see M.R.Evid. 103. Wickham also contends the evidence was insufficient to support his robbery conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense of robbery. 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)

510 A.2d 519, 1986 Me. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wickham-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack