704 A.2d 370 (Me. 1997), State v. Platt
|Citation:||704 A.2d 370, 1997 ME 229|
|Party Name:||STATE of Maine v. Thomas PLATT.|
|Attorney:||R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, C. Daniel Wood, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bangor, for State. Perry O'Brian, Bangor, for defendant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.|
|Case Date:||December 12, 1997|
|Court:||Supreme Judicial Court of Maine|
Submitted on Briefs Sept. 16, 1997.
¶1 Defendant Thomas Platt appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Penobscot, Kravchuk, J.) following a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651 (1983). Defendant challenges the admission in evidence of a redacted statement of a State's witness, the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
¶2 The relevant facts may be summarized as follows: On July 17, 1994, at approximately 2:00 a.m., a desk clerk at a motel in Bangor was talking on the telephone when two men entered the front door. Both men wore masks, and one man removed the phone from her hand and ripped it out of the wall. One man grabbed her and held a knife to her face demanding that she show him where the money was kept. When the robbers were unable to open the register, they forced her to open it for them. They took approximately $1000 and ran from the motel. The desk clerk was unable to identify either of the robbers. At trial, the State called Dale Braley as a witness, and he testified that he participated in the robbery, along with defendant and Robert King. Three other acquaintances of defendant testified that he admitted his involvement in the robbery to them. Defendant's girlfriend, also called as a State's witness, testified that she could not remember whether defendant had admitted his involvement in the robbery. She conceded, however, that in testifying before the grand jury she had stated that defendant admitted his involvement to her. She also conceded that she had testified truthfully to the grand jury.
¶3 The State called as a witness the alleged accomplice Robert King. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify. The court ruled that King was unavailable as a witness, and permitted the State to introduce, in redacted form, the contents of a written statement given to the police by King. In the statement, King confessed that he and defendant entered the motel...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP