Case Name: STATE of Maine v. David MOODY
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1986-01-23
Citations: 503 A.2d 706
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Maine v. David MOODY.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 503
Pages: 706–706

Head Matter:
STATE of Maine v. David MOODY.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued Jan. 21, 1986.
Decided Jan. 23, 1986.
R. Christopher Almy, Dist. Atty., Philip Worden (orally), Asst. Dist. Atty., Bangor, for the State.
Charles W. Hodsdon, II (orally), Bangor, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
David Moody appeals his convictions of burglary, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 401, and of criminal mischief, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 806, entered after a jury trial in Superior Court (Penobscot County). We find no merit either in defendant's contention, made for the first time on appeal, that the State in closing argument commented improperly on his defenses, or in his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. The record shows that the prosecutor properly based his closing argument on the facts in evidence; "we cannot say the comments . manifestly deprived the defendant of a fair trial." State v. Hebert, 480 A.2d 742, 751 (Me.1984). Viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crimes of burglary and criminal mischief. See State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).
The entry is:
Judgments of conviction affirmed.
All concurring.