State v. Long
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
656 A.2d 1228 (1995)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Brett Bodman became upset with David LaFlamme because he thought LaFlamme was working with law-enforcement officers to testify against Bodman. Shortly after, LaFlamme’s trailer house was intentionally burned down. LaFlamme did not see who started the fire. Based on statements he made to law enforcement and circumstantial physical evidence, Justin Long (defendant) was charged with burning down LaFlamme’s house. However, LaFlamme claimed that he spoke to Bodman after the fire and that Bodman admitted to having started the fire. At trial, Long attempted to have LaFlamme testify that LaFlamme knew Bodman had burned down his house. The trial court excluded the testimony, finding that LaFlamme did not have personal knowledge of who had actually set his house on fire. The trial court found that, at most, LaFlamme had personal knowledge of an out-of-court statement by Bodman, which was inadmissible hearsay. Long was convicted of arson and appealed. On appeal, Long argued that LaFlamme should have been allowed to testify about who started the fire.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clifford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
