Case Name: STATE of Maine v. ROBERT M.
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1991-04-11
Citations: 588 A.2d 1202
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Maine v. ROBERT M.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and BRODY, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 588
Pages: 1202–1202

Head Matter:
STATE of Maine v. ROBERT M.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Submitted on Briefs March 22, 1991.
Decided April 11, 1991.
Stephanie Anderson, Dist. Atty., Diane Powers, Asst. Dist. Atty., Portland, for plaintiff.
Richard W. Elliott, II, Elliott & Elliott, Boothbay Harbor, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and BRODY, JJ.

Opinion:
COLLINS, Justice.
Defendant Robert M. appeals the decision of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Lipez, J.) denying his appeal from convictions as an accomplice, 17-A M.R. S.A. § 57(3)(A) (1983), to criminal mischief, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 806(1)(A) (1983), and theft, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (1983), following a juvenile adjudication hearing in District Court (Bath, Westcott, J.). The only issue presented on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. Finding that there was, we affirm.
We review the record of the District Court directly. State v. Flint, 544 A.2d 739, 741 (Me.1988). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the judgment will stand if, based on the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, "viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any trier of fact rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged." State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985).
The court found that the primary actor had committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. It based this finding on eyewitness testimony of the commission of the crimes and the primary actor's possession of the stolen property. The court found further that defendant had aided in the commission of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It based this finding on the testimony that defendant was with the primary actor before, during and after the crime; on a reasonable inference from the testimony that defendant was the lookout; and on its disbelief of defendant's story. See Flint, 544 A.2d at 742; State v. Ifill, 572 A.2d 476, 477 (Me.1990); State v. Langill, 567 A.2d 440, 444 (Me.1989). The court's decision was supported by facts on the record and reasonable inferences therefrom.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring: