Case Name: STATE of Maine v. Andy ACKERMAN
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1987-06-23
Citations: 526 A.2d 952
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Maine v. Andy ACKERMAN.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 526
Pages: 952–952

Head Matter:
STATE of Maine v. Andy ACKERMAN.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued June 10, 1987.
Decided June 23, 1987.
James E. Tierney, Atty. Gen., Amy M. Homans, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Consumer and Antitrust Div., Augusta, Me., for plaintiff.
Michael P. Cantara (orally), Caron & Sullivan, Biddeford, Me., for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
Andy Ackerman appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in Superior Court, York County, convicting him of depraved indifference murder, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(B) (1983). We find no merit in Ackerman's first challenge, that the presiding justice committed reversible error in admitting into evidence a prior consistent statement under M.R. Evid. 801(d)(1), in that all of the requirements for the admission of that statement had been met. See State v. Fredette, 462 A.2d 17, 22-23 (Me.1983). We also reject Ackerman's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.