From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Thompson

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Oct 21, 1988
549 A.2d 364 (Me. 1988)

Opinion

Argued September 23, 1988.

Decided October 21, 1988.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Lincoln County.

William R. Anderson, Dist. Atty., David Spencer (orally), Asst. Dist. Atty., Wiscasset, for the State.

Dennis Levandoski (orally), Kettle, Carter, Henegar, Levandoski Anderson, Portland, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and HORNBY, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Paul Thompson appeals from his conviction following a jury trial in Superior Court (Lincoln County) for one count of gross sexual misconduct ( 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(B) (Supp. 1987-1988)) and for one count of unlawful sexual contact ( 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(C) (Supp. 1987-1988)). Thompson waived his right to counsel in the Superior Court and appeared pro se throughout the trial. Contrary to Thompson's contention on appeal, the manner in which the trial court (Lipez, J.) permitted defendant to conduct his defense was within the proper exercise of the court's discretion. The court did not commit obvious error by instructing the jury that the specific dates of the criminal conduct need not be proved or by failing to instruct the jury with regard to the statute of limitations. See State v. Nason, 498 A.2d 252 (Me. 1985). Finally we conclude that Thompson did not preserve his claim of error concerning the exclusion of evidence of the victim's alleged past sexual behavior. See M.R.Evid. 103(a)(2), and State v. Williams, 462 A.2d 491, 492 (Me. 1983). We find no obvious error.

The entry is:

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.

All concurring.


Summaries of

State v. Thompson

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Oct 21, 1988
549 A.2d 364 (Me. 1988)
Case details for

State v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Maine v. Paul THOMPSON

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date published: Oct 21, 1988

Citations

549 A.2d 364 (Me. 1988)

Citing Cases

Thompson v. State

We rejected Thompson's contention in a memorandum of decision on the ground that this issue had not been…