Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2004

State v. Ross

State v. Ross
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Decided January 30, 2004 · Alexander, Calkins, Clifford, Dana, Levy, Rudman
841 A.2d 814; 2004 ME 12; 2004 Me. LEXIS 12 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)
State v. Ross

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.RApp. 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 *815Rule 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

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.