History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Lowberg
416 A.2d 264
Me.
1980
Check Treatment

MEMORANDUM OP DECISION.

After a jury-waived trial, Arthur Low-berg was convicted of gross sexual misconduct. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(B). As his sole issue on appeal, Lowberg suggests that the presiding justice was clearly erroneous in rejecting the uncontradicted and unim-peached testimony of a psychiatrist who testified in support of an insanity defense.

Although the State introduced no expert testimony to rebut the psychiatrist’s opinion, the State did, through cross-examination, cast doubt on the facts and assumptions underlying that opinion. Significant non-expert testimony was introduced upon which the presiding justice could find against the defendant on the insanity issue. See State v. Page, Me., 415 A.2d 574 (1980); State v. Ellingwood, Me., 409 A.2d 641 (1979).

Since Lowberg had the burden of persuasion on the defense of insanity, we cannot say that the finding by the court was clearly erroneous.

The entry is:

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

All concurring.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Lowberg
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Jul 9, 1980
Citation: 416 A.2d 264
Court Abbreviation: Me.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.