 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. WARNER12/26/1967
e acted correctly in denying defendant's motion to dismiss.
Point No. 2. "The court erred in denying motions of defendant-appellant for judgment of acquittal."
At the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence by the State, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal under M.R.Crim.P. Rule 29, on the grounds that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient for the case to go to the jury and to support a verdict of guilty if one should be returned, which motion was denied by the presiding justice. At this point in the trial there had been evidence presented from which the jury could properly have found as follows: At about 2:20 A.M., January 1, 1966, Emma Charity and two friends were crossing College avenue in Waterville, a four lane street, and had nearly reached the curb when Mrs. Charity was struck and killed by an automobile driven by the defendant, which was travelling at a very high rate of speed. The defendant continued on without stopping and was pursued by a Mr. Rediker, a bystander, who followed the defendant one and one-half miles to Fairfield and gave information concerning the incident to Officer Nelson, a Fairfield police officer. Nelson, who had just started to pursue the defendant because of his excessive speed followed the defendant one and one-half miles at the high rate of speed to a point where defendant swung into a driveway. Defendant's driving had been erratic. Nelson walked around defendant's car and observed a large dent on the hood and a larger one just below the windshield. There was a side mirror on the left side but none on the right and there were fresh marks where the right-hand mirror had been. These marks were similar in size and shape to the base of a broken mirror that was later found near Mrs. Charity's body. The appearance, speech and movement of defendant were those of a person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor and the officer placed him under arrest for operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The officer then removed from the defendant's car three cans and one bottle of beer.
At this point Officer Grenier, a Waterville police officer, arrived and observed the damage to defendant's car and a substance appearing to be blood on the hood and some other substance on the windshield. Grenier warned defendant of his constitutional rights and defendant told the officer he had just driven out College Avenue and that at one point he had seen something black in the air.
The mirror found in the street was similar to the one remaining on defendant's car and to the one which a Mr. Lawrence had installed upon the right-hand side of defendant's car when he sold the car to defendant ten days before. At that time there were no dents such as the officers observed on defendant's hood and cowl.
The evidence heard by the jury at the time of defendant's motion was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction. There was no error.
Point No. 3. "The court erred in instructing the jury in the respects to which defendant-appellant took exception. * * *"
M.R.Crim.P. Rule 30(b) provides:
"* * * No party shall assign as error any portion of the charge
or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury
retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter
to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. * * *"
Defendant's counsel failed to comply with this provision in that no grounds for his objection were stated.
We have, however, examined the objections and we are satisfied that the defendant was in no way prejudiced by the five
Point No. 4. The defendant requested some 16 instr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|