State of Maine v. Bruce Ross

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2004 ME 12 Docket: Oxf-03-492 Submitted on Briefs: January 22, 2004 Decided: January 30, 2004 Panel: Reporter of Decisions CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. BRUCE ROSS PER CURIAM Bruce Ross appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Rumford, McElwee, J.) convicting him of assault (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207(1)(A) (Supp. 2003). We dismiss Ross s appeal for his failure to file an appendix in accordance with M.R. App. P. 8(g). Specifically, to the extent Ross is appealing from the trial court s grant of a motion to amend the complaint, Ross has failed to include that ruling as required by Rule 8(g)(3), and has also failed to include the criminal complaint as required by Rule 8(g)(4); nor does the appendix include the docket entries, the judgment, or the complaint on the second assault charge, despite the mandate of Rule 8(g)(2-4).1 1 We note that were we to ignore the deficiencies in the appendix filed by Ross, Ross has failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality we attribute to statutory enactment. See Town of Baldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME 52, ¶ 9, 794 A.2d 62, 66. 2 The entry is: Appeal dismissed. Attorneys for State: Norman R. Crotteau, District Attorney Joseph M. O Connor, Asst. Dist. Atty. P O Box 179 South Paris, ME 04281 Attorney for defendant: Ron E. Hoffman, Esq. 24 Congress Street Rumford, ME 04276

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.