From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Comeau

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Sep 25, 1987
531 A.2d 290 (Me. 1987)

Opinion

Argued September 16, 1987.

Decided September 25, 1987.

Appeal from the Appeal from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.

Janet T. Mills, Dist. Atty., Patricia J. Reynolds (orally), Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Robert A. Laskoff, P.A., Charles E. Trainor (orally), Lewiston, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Normand Comeau, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court, Androscoggin County, affirming the judgment of the District Court, Lewiston, convicting him of violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B (Supp. 1986) (operating under the influence of alcohol) and 29 M.R.S.A. § 2184(1) (Supp. 1986) (operating with a suspended license).

Our review of the record discloses that the claimed hearsay statements of Barry Estabrook were properly admitted by the District Court as excited utterances and present sense impressions pursuant to M.R.Evid. 803(1) and (2). State v. Franklin, 478 A.2d 1107, 1111 (Me. 1984); State v. Ryne G., 509 A.2d 1164, 1168 (Me. 1986). The trier of facts could rationally have found the essential elements of the offenses charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me. 1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.


Summaries of

State v. Comeau

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Sep 25, 1987
531 A.2d 290 (Me. 1987)
Case details for

State v. Comeau

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Maine v. Normand COMEAU, Jr

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date published: Sep 25, 1987

Citations

531 A.2d 290 (Me. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Brown

The tape was properly received into evidence as a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, as…