prejudicial error in Maine

2023The State contends that there was sufficient evidence to generate an instruction because there was evidence that (1) two guns were used in the murders and (2) Nightingale stated that other people committed the murders. [¶21] When a defendant raises on appeal a preserved challenge to jury instructions, “[w]e review [the] jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Tucker, 2015 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 117 A.3d 595 (quotation marks omitted); see State v. Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶

2023The State contends that there was sufficient evidence to generate an instruction because there was evidence that (1) two guns were used in the murders and (2) Nightingale stated that other people committed the murders. [¶21] When a defendant raises on appeal a preserved challenge to jury instructions, “[w]e review [the] jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Tucker, 2015 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 117 A.3d 595 (quotation marks omitted); see State v. Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶

2015We review “jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” Martin, 2007 ME 23, ¶ 5 , 916 A.2d 961 (quotation marks omitted). [¶11] Because Baker did not object when the court initially instructed the jury on self-defense, we review his challenge to the court’s jury instructions for obvious error.

2015We review “jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” Martin, 2007 ME 23, ¶ 5 , 916 A.2d 961 (quotation marks omitted). [¶11] Because Baker did not object when the court initially instructed the jury on self-defense, we review his challenge to the court’s jury instructions for obvious error.

2020“We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Hofland, 2012 ME 129, ¶ 18 , 58 A.3d 1023 (quotation marks omitted).

2020“We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Hofland, 2012 ME 129, ¶ 18 , 58 A.3d 1023 (quotation marks omitted).

2016DISCUSSION [¶ 10] “We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Tucker, 2015 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 117 A.3d 595 (quotation marks omitted). ‘We will vacate a judgment based on a denied request for a jury instruction if the appellant demonstrates that the requested instruction (1) stated the law correctly; (2) was generated by the evidence; (3) was not misleading or confusing; 1 and (4) was not sufficiently covered in the instructions the court gave.” State v. Hanaman

2016DISCUSSION [¶ 10] “We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Tucker, 2015 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 117 A.3d 595 (quotation marks omitted). ‘We will vacate a judgment based on a denied request for a jury instruction if the appellant demonstrates that the requested instruction (1) stated the law correctly; (2) was generated by the evidence; (3) was not misleading or confusing; 1 and (4) was not sufficiently covered in the instructions the court gave.” State v. Hanaman

2016Because Anderson preserved his objection to the inclusion of accomplice liability instructions as well as the exclusion of his recommended constructive possession instructions, we will vacate his judgment of conviction “if the erroneous instruetion[s] resulted in prejudice.” Caruso v. Jackson Lab., 2014 ME 101, ¶ 12 , 98 A.3d 221 ; see also M.R.U.

2016Because Anderson preserved his objection to the inclusion of accomplice liability instructions as well as the exclusion of his recommended constructive possession instructions, we will vacate his judgment of conviction “if the erroneous instruetion[s] resulted in prejudice.” Caruso v. Jackson Lab., 2014 ME 101, ¶ 12 , 98 A.3d 221 ; see also M.R.U.

2008State v. Gauthier, 2007 ME 156, ¶ 14 , 939 A.2d 77, 81 ; State v. Martin, 2007 ME 23, ¶ 5 , 916 A.2d 961, 964 .

2008Roberts argues that the court should have instructed the jury that the State had to prove that Roberts knew Mendoza was not about to use deadly force and knew that she was not about to kidnap the daughter rather than that Roberts did not believe Mendoza was about to commit these acts. [¶ 41] “We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, to ensure they informed the jury correctly and fairly.” State v. Gauthier, 2007 ME 156, ¶ 14 , 989 A.2d 77, 81 .

2024Our review considers “the jury instructions in their entirety to determine if the instructions failed to inform the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” Id. (emphasis added) (alteration and quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Clark, 2021 ME 12, ¶ 16 , 246 A.3d 1165 (“We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)).

2023The “100-Percent-Fit Work Policy” Jury Instruction [¶13] “We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” Darling’s Auto Mall, 2016 ME 48, ¶ 14 , 135 A.3d 819 (quotation marks omitted).

2023The “100-Percent-Fit Work Policy” Jury Instruction [¶13] “We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” Darling’s Auto Mall, 2016 ME 48, ¶ 14 , 135 A.3d 819 (quotation marks omitted).

2023In the case of review for obvious error, a standard applicable to two of the three challenged instructions here, “a defendant is entitled to relief only ‘when jury instructions, viewed as a whole, are affected by highly prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.’” State v. Bonfanti, 2023 ME 31, ¶ 19 , 294 A.3d 137 (quoting State v. Baker, 2015 ME 39, ¶ 11 , 114 A.3d 214 ). 7 A. Quality of the Police Investigation [¶16] The detective who investigated the case testified and was cross-examined at length regarding what the defense viewed as deficiencies in the investigation.

2023In the case of review for obvious error, a standard applicable to two of the three challenged instructions here, “a defendant is entitled to relief only ‘when jury instructions, viewed as a whole, are affected by highly prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.’” State v. Bonfanti, 2023 ME 31, ¶ 19 , 294 A.3d 137 (quoting State v. Baker, 2015 ME 39, ¶ 11 , 114 A.3d 214 ). 7 A. Quality of the Police Investigation [¶16] The detective who investigated the case testified and was cross-examined at length regarding what the defense viewed as deficiencies in the investigation.

2023In the case of review for obvious error, a standard applicable to two of the three challenged instructions here, “a defendant is entitled to relief only ‘when jury instructions, viewed as a whole, are affected by highly prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.’” State v. Bonfanti, 2023 ME 31, ¶ 19 , 294 A.3d 137 (quoting State v. Baker, 2015 ME 39, ¶ 11 , 114 A.3d 214 ). 7 A. Quality of the Police Investigation [¶16] The detective who investigated the case testified and was cross-examined at length regarding what the defense viewed as deficiencies in the investigation.

2023In the case of review for obvious error, a standard applicable to two of the three challenged instructions here, “a defendant is entitled to relief only ‘when jury instructions, viewed as a whole, are affected by highly prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.’” State v. Bonfanti, 2023 ME 31, ¶ 19 , 294 A.3d 137 (quoting State v. Baker, 2015 ME 39, ¶ 11 , 114 A.3d 214 ). 7 A. Quality of the Police Investigation [¶16] The detective who investigated the case testified and was cross-examined at length regarding what the defense viewed as deficiencies in the investigation.

2017Although Siracu-sa is correct that the crime of driving deer contains a mens rea component, because the court’s instructions adequately and correctly conveyed the elements of both crimes to the jury, we conclude that the court did not err in refusing Siracusa’s request. [¶ 6] “We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Mahmoud, 2016 ME 135, ¶ 10 , 147 A.3d 838 (quotation marks omitted).

2016Where, as here, the appellant has preserved the issue for appeal by requesting that the court give the instruction at issue, see Clewley v. Whitney, 2002 ME 61, ¶ 9 , 794 A.2d 87 ; we will vacate the judgment if the appellant demonstrates that the requested jury instruction (1) stated the law correctly; ’ (2) was generated by the evidence; (3) was not misleading or confusing; and (4) was not sufficiently covered in the instructions the court gave.

2016Where, as here, the appellant has preserved the issue for appeal by requesting that the court give the instruction at issue, see Clewley v. Whitney, 2002 ME 61, ¶ 9 , 794 A.2d 87 ; we will vacate the judgment if the appellant demonstrates that the requested jury instruction (1) stated the law correctly; ’ (2) was generated by the evidence; (3) was not misleading or confusing; and (4) was not sufficiently covered in the instructions the court gave.

2011See State v. Elliott, 2010 ME 3, ¶ 22 , 987 A.2d 513, 520 (reviewing instructions for obvious error when objection to the instructions unpreserved at trial); State v. Greenleaf, 2004 ME 149, ¶¶ 21-23 , 863 A.2d 877, 882 ; see also Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 , 202 n. 8, 204-06, 111 S.Ct. 604 , 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (holding that, unlike instances of misunderstanding, a good faith belief that federal income tax laws are unconstitutional or invalid, or a good faith disagreement with them, is not a defense to a willful failure to file tax returns or to evade taxes). [¶ 5] Further, the S

2011See State v. Elliott, 2010 ME 3, ¶ 22 , 987 A.2d 513, 520 (reviewing instructions for obvious error when objection to the instructions unpreserved at trial); State v. Greenleaf, 2004 ME 149, ¶¶ 21-23 , 863 A.2d 877, 882 ; see also Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 , 202 n. 8, 204-06, 111 S.Ct. 604 , 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (holding that, unlike instances of misunderstanding, a good faith belief that federal income tax laws are unconstitutional or invalid, or a good faith disagreement with them, is not a defense to a willful failure to file tax returns or to evade taxes). [¶ 5] Further, the S

2008Roberts argues that the court should have instructed the jury that the State had to prove that Roberts knew Mendoza was not about to use deadly force and knew that she was not about to kidnap the daughter rather than that Roberts did not believe Mendoza was about to commit these acts. [¶ 41] “We review jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, to ensure they informed the jury correctly and fairly.” State v. Gauthier, 2007 ME 156, ¶ 14 , 989 A.2d 77, 81 .

2008In conducting this review, “we consider the effect of the instructions as a whole and the potential for juror misunderstanding.” Id. [1142] A defendant cannot be convicted of murder unless he committed the act “[i]ntentionally or knowingly.” 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A).

2007We review the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and “to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Lemieux, 2001 ME 46, ¶ 2 , 767 A.2d 295 ,, 296 (quotation marks omitted).

2007We review the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and “to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Lemieux, 2001 ME 46, ¶ 2 , 767 A.2d 295 ,, 296 (quotation marks omitted).

1991When determining if there is obvious error, we must examine “all of the circumstances of the case at hand to determine whether the inadmissible evidence received at trial without objection was in its probable effect on the jury, ‘a prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.' ” True, 438 A.2d at 467 (quoting State v. Baker, 409 A.2d 216, 219 (Me. 1979)).