Case ID: a2d_434/html/0540-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Maine v. Joseph F. STACKPOLE.
    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
    Argued Sept. 10, 1981.
    Decided Sept. 16, 1981.
    John D. McElwee, Dist. Atty. (orally), Houlton, for plaintiff.
    Barnes & Sylvester, Forrest W. Barnes (orally), Torrey A. Sylvester, John 0. Rogers, Houlton, for defendant.
    Before McKUSICK, C. J., and GOD-FREY, NICHOLS, ROBERTS, CARTER, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.
   MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Joseph F. Stackpole appeals from his conviction in Superior Court, Aroostook County, of manslaughter. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 203. Stockpole contends that there was insufficient evidence of his operation of the automobile involved in a fatal accident, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm the judgment below.

The evidence in the record, albeit circumstantial, was clearly sufficient to warrant the jury in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Stackpole was the operator of the automobile. Proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence is subject to no more rigorous a standard than is proof by direct evidence. State v. LeClair, Me., 425 A.2d 182, 184 (1981).

We have carefully reviewed the findings of the justice on the motion for a new trial. His findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. See State v. Arnold, Me., 434 A.2d 57, 60 (1981). His conclusion to deny the motion for a new trial was the result of a proper application of the five-part test set out in State v. Young, Me., 413 A.2d 161, 161 (1980).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.