State v. Perkins
| Citation | 275 A.2d 586 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Caroline PERKINS. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1971 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Ronald E. Ayotte, County Atty., Paul L. Hazard and Wayne E. Murray, Law Students, Alfred, for plaintiff.
Roger S. Elliott, Saco, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
This case comes before us on Report. The Defendant was arrested on November 19, 1969, for the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, and on December 17, 1969, was bound over to the January 1970 Term of the Superior Court, York County. On December 23, 1969, the Defendant filed a motion in the Superior Court for the suppression of evidence before the Grand Jury 'and or before the Superior Court * * *', alleging the violation of certain of the Defendant's constitutional rights during a 'line-up' held for the purpose of identification by a witness to the alleged crime. On that same day, Defendant's Counsel wrote the Clerk of Courts enclosing the motion and stating: '(T)he Motion must be heard prior to this matter being submitted to the Grand Jury.' The motion was not heard and the Grand Jury, on January 8, 1970, indicted the Defendant for a violation of 17 M.R.S.A. Sec. 754. On March 7, 1970, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Indictment because '(T)he Defendant was indicted by said Grand Jury * * *, by use in part of the evidence sought to be suppressed by the Motion, and without the Motion having been determined by this Court prior to the Grand Jury action.' On March 9, 1970, a hearing was held, at which the 'line-up' procedure was described, and the Justice below ruled on both the original motion to suppress and the later motion to dismiss. Although the record before us indicates that the Justice reported only his denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the Points on Appeal include the correctness of his denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment. Both issues were briefed and argued as though included in the scope of the Report.
We can deal with the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment rather summarily by repeating what was said in State v. Fitzherbert (1969), Me., 249 A.2d 760 '(I)n this jurisdiction courts are not authorized to inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence on which the grand jury acted.' We have no rule or statute which allows such an inquiry, nor do we feel inclined to do so by judicial fiat. In any event, there is nothing in the record either here, or before the Justice below, that even suggests the evidence sought to be suppressed was, in fact, heard by the Grand Jury.
On the issue of suppression of prospective Superior Court testimony, certainly M.R.Crim.P. Rule 41(e) cannot be used as authority for the Motion. The ultimate purpose here was to suppress 'in court' identification of the Defendant because an alleged improper 'line-up...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Heald
...into the sufficiency of the evidence on which the grand jury acted.' State v. Fitzherbert, 249 A.2d 760, 761 (Me.1969); State v. Perkins, 275 A.2d 586 (Me.1971). This point is without Prejudicial granting of defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging defendant with being an accessory......
-
State v. Levesque
...reasoned rule adhered to by a majority of those appellate tribunals which have had occasion to pass upon the issue.' In State v. Perkins, 1971, Me., 275 A.2d 586, we further 'We have no rule or statute which allows such an inquiry, nor do we feel inclined to do so by judicial fiat.' This Co......
-
State v. Barlow Jr.
...way of a pre-trial hearing in response to a motion to suppress, even though the issue has not been briefed nor argued. In State v. Perkins, 1971, Me., 275 A.2d 586, we held that a motion to suppress such testimonial evidence was not within the contemplated reach of either Rule 12 or Rule 41......
-
State v. Marshall
...inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence on which the grand jury acted. State v. Heald, 307 A.2d 188, 190 (Me.1973); State v. Perkins, 275 A.2d 586, 587 (Me.1971); State v. Fitzherbert, 249 A.2d 760, 761-762 (Me.1969). We see no reason to depart from this well-established policy. Each d......