State v. Di Pietrantonio
| Decision Date | 09 March 1920 |
| Citation | 109 A. 186 |
| Parties | STATE v. DI PIETRANTONIO |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Exceptions and Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Cumberland County, at Law.
Rinaldo Di Pietrantonio was convicted of an assault upon an officer, and he excepts and appeals. Exception overruled, and appeal dismissed, and judgment for the State.
Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.
Wilbur C. Whelden and Samuel L. Bates, both of Portland, for respondent and appellant.
Carroll L. Beedy and Clement F. Robinson both of Portland, for the State.
The indictment in this case charged the respondent with an assault upon an officer.
At the close of all the testimony the respondent requested the court to direct a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insufficient evidence, and to the refusal to so direct an exception was taken. The jury then rendered a verdict of guilty of assault.
After verdict the respondent filed a motion ashing the presiding justice to set aside the verdict on the general ground that it was contrary to the law and the evidence. This motion was denied and the respondent filed an appeal to the law court.
The exception to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the respondent was waived by the filing of the motion to set aside the verdict after it was rendered. Precisely the same question was raised by both. State v. Simpson, 113 Me. 27, 92 Atl. 898; State v. Davis, 116 Me. 260, 101 Atl. 208. "
The appeal authorized by R. S. c. 136, § 28, in case of felony, raises the single question whether, in view of all the testimony, the jury were warranted in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty. State v. Lambert. 97 Me. 57, 53 Atl. 879; State v. Albanes, 109 Me. 199, 83 Atl. 548; State v. Priest, 117 Me. 223, 103 Atl. 359. The jury that tried the case and saw and heard the witnesses have expressed their belief by their verdict, and a careful study of the evidence, aided by the arguments of counsel, fails to convince this court that their belief was unwarranted.
Exception overruled.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment for the state.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bobb
...tribunal. This rule of waiver has been affirmed in State v. Power, 123 Me. 223, 122 A. 572, involving misdemeanor; State v. DiPietrantonio, 119 Me. 18, 109 A. 186; State v. O'Donnell, 131 Me. 294, 161 A. 802, and State v. Davis, 116 Me. 260, 101 A. 208, all felony cases. Upon careful consid......
-
State v. Smith.
...51, 52, 53 A. 879; State v. Albanes, 109 Me. 199, 201, 202, 83 A. 548; State v. Priest, 117 Me. 223, 227, 103 A. 359; State v. Di Pietrantonio, 119 Me. 18, 19, 109 A. 186; State v. Gross, 130 Me. 161, 163, 154 A. 187. A careful and painstaking study of the record convinces us that the jury ......
-
State v. Hudon.
...Albanes, 109 Me. 199, 83 A. 548; State v. Mulkerrin, 112 Me. 544, 92 A. 785; State v. Priest, 117 Me. 223, 103 A. 359; State v. DiPietrantonio, 119 Me. 18, 109 A. 186; State v. Papazian, 124 Me. 378, 130 A. 129; State v. Pond, 125 Me. 453, 134 A. 572; State v. Smith, 140 Me. 255, 37 A.2d 24......
-
State v. Dipietrantonio
...McKrackern, 141 Me. 194, 197, 41 A.2d 817. This exception was waived by filing motion to set aside verdict and appeal. State v. Di Pietrantonio, 119 Me. 18, 109 A. 186. Exceptions VI, VII, VIII were requested instructions that were refused except as covered in the charge. The first requeste......