Case ID: a2d_503/html/0705-01.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. Floyd ALEXANDER.
    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
    Argued Jan. 15, 1986.
    Decided Jan. 22, 1986.
    Paul Aranson, Dist. Atty., Laurence Gardner (orally), Asst. Dist. Atty., Portland, for the State.
    Loyd, Bumgardner, Field & Patterson, Mary Lou Ciolfi (orally), Joseph H. Field, Brunswick, for defendant.
    Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, WATHEN and SCOLNIK, JJ.
   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Alleging insufficiency of the evidence, Floyd Alexander appeals from his conviction of four counts of gross sexual misconduct, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(B) (Supp. 1985-1986), after a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court (Cumberland County). We have repeatedly held that if the testimony of the complaining juvenile witness in a gross sexual misconduct trial is not contradictory, unreasonable, or incredible, we will not substitute our judgment as to the weight to be given that testimony for the judgment of the finder of fact at trial. See, e.g., State v. Pierce, 438 A.2d 247, 252 (Me.1981). Recognizing certain discrepancies in the child victim’s testimony as to the frequency of the sexual misconduct, the trial justice found that such testimony as to the actual occurrence of the misconduct was not contradictory, unreasonable or incredible. Upon careful review of the record we cannot say that no finder of fact could rationally have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The entry is:

Judgments affirmed.

All concurring.