Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help

State v. Nugent
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions Page


MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					                                    Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	2002 ME 111 
Docket:	   Pis-01-713
Submitted
on Briefs:	June 27, 2002
Decided:	July 10, 2002

Panel:      SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and
                LEVY, JJ.



                                                                              STATE OF MAINE

                                                                                             v.

                                                                         JOSEPH J. NUGENT III



ALEXANDER,  J.

	[¶1]  Joseph J. Nugent III appeals from a judgment by the District Court
(Dover-Foxcroft, Stitham, J.) finding him to have committed the traffic infraction
of speeding fifty miles per hour in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone.  See 29-A
M.R.S.A. § 2074 (1996 & Supp. 2001).  Nugent asserts that (1) he was not
allowed to make a statement to the court but instead was required to proceed by
questions and answers, and (2) he was improperly deprived of his right to a jury
trial.  We affirm.

	[¶2]  No transcript or statement in lieu of a transcript of the court hearing
has been provided.  See M.R. App. P. 5(b)(2), (d), (f).  Thus, it is impossible to
assess the validity of Nugent's first point of appeal.   When the record on appeal
does not include a transcript of the proceedings below, we must assume that the
transcript would support the trial court's findings of fact and its rulings on
evidence and procedure.  Putnam v. Albee, 1999 ME 44, ¶ 10, 726 A.2d 217,
220.

	[¶3]  Nugent's second point on appeal, that he had a right to a jury trial in
this speeding infraction case, is resolved by our ruling in State v. Anton, 463 A.2d
703 (Me. 1983).  In Anton a right to a jury trial in a speeding infraction case was
asserted, based on the Maine Constitution.  We held that (1) "traffic infraction
proceedings are not ‘criminal prosecutions' for which the right to trial by jury is
guaranteed by article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution," id. at 708, and (2)
there is no civil jury trial right for traffic infraction proceedings afforded by
article I, section 20 of the Maine Constitution, id. at 708-09.  The scholarly
review of the law undertaken by Justice Godfrey in Anton remains good law
today.  There is no right to a jury trial in traffic infraction cases.

	The entry is:

			Judgment affirmed.

Attorneys for State:	                                             For defendant:

R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney	                Joseph J. Nugent III
C. Daniel Wood, Asst. Dist. Atty.	                        118 Oxford Street
97 Hammond Street	                                                 Millinocket, ME 04462
Bangor, ME 04401