Case ID: a2d_510/html/1070-01.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. James W. TUCKETT.
    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
    Argued June 3, 1986.
    Decided June 18, 1986.
    Mary C. Tousignant, Dist. Atty., David Gregory (orally), Alfred, for state.
    Richardson, Tyler & Troubh, Robert M. Knight (orally), John Whitman, Portland, for defendant.
    Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, VIOLETTE, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ.
   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

James W. Tuckett appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (York County) entered on a jury verdict convicting him of unlawful sexual contact, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(C) (Supp.1985-1986). Without any record, we cannot review his challenge of the voir dire of prospective jurors. See State v. Dionne, 505 A.2d 1321, 1325 (Me.1986). We also reject his contention that one part of the trial court’s instruction on sexual contact constituted obvious error. On the whole instruction the error, if any, was not obviously and highly prejudicial, indeed not prejudicial at all, because the court thereafter clearly and correctly defined the term. See State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 467-68 (Me.1981). Finally, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense of unlawful sexual contact. See State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.