Case Name: STATE of Maine v. Joseph F. STACKPOLE
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1981-09-16
Citations: 434 A.2d 540
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Maine v. Joseph F. STACKPOLE.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C. J., and GOD-FREY, NICHOLS, ROBERTS, CARTER, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 434
Pages: 540–540

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.