Legal Opinion
State v. Smith
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided November 13, 1978PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POMEROY, Justice.
It is clear, a violation of 17-A M.R. S.A. § 255(1)(C) (unlawful sexual contact) has been established only when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual contact was “for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 251(1)(D). To instruct that an intentional sexual contact with an “immoral or evil intent” is sufficient is not to describe the law accurately.
The real question before us becomes: is appellant entitled to a new trial because the presiding Justice instructed the jury in part that the crime was complete, the other elements being…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Jose Verdugo and Horace Eugene Turner v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. ConnerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
- State v. JenkinsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. HassapelisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
- State v. LyonsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.