obviousness error in Maine

1998Here we cannot say that “the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to” Steven was “so great” that we “cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand.” State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 469 (Me.1981). *1097 [¶ 19] Our reliance on Gray v. Maryland, a 1998 opinion of the United States Supreme Court, speaks to the lack of obviousness of the error.

1994"The particular circumstances, weighed with careful judgment, will determine whether the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to the defendant thereby are so great the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand." Id. at 469 .

2008“The particular circumstances, weighed with careful judgment, will determine whether the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to the defendant thereby are so great the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand.” Dube, 598 A.2d at 744 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 13] When viewed in the context of the record in this case, the comments of the prosecutor were not so highly prejudi *1071 cial, nor the proceedings so tainted, as to deprive Clark of a fair trial.

1994For that reason, we review her allegation of prosecutorial misconduct for obvious error, M.R.Crim.P. 52; M.R.Evid. 103(a)(1), to determine whether “‘the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to the defendant thereby are so great that the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand.’ ” State v. Tripp, 634 A.2d 1318, 1320 (Me.1994) (quoting State v. Dube, 598 A.2d 742, 744 (Me.1991)).

2025The crux of the obvious error analysis is “whether the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to the defendant thereby are so great the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand.” State v. Daley, 440 A.2d 1053, 1055 (Me. 1982) (quotation marks omitted).

2011State v. Daley, 440 A.2d 1053, 1055 (Me. 1982) (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 20] Although our opinions are largely in agreement that before an instructional error can be deemed obvious, the prejudice resulting from the error must be manifest, they have not been consistent in articulating the test to be employed in making that determination.

2002State v. Boyle, 560 A.2d 556, 557-58 (Me.1989). [¶ 9] Here, White agreed to the instruction that he now challenges.

1989Under this standard, the conviction will be overturned only if “ ‘the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to the defendant thereby are so great the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand.’ ” State v. Boyle, 560 A.2d 556, 557-8 (Me.1989), quoting State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 469 (Me.1981).

2000See State v. Tripp, 634 A.2d 1318, 1320 (Me.1994) (quoting State v. True 438 A.2d 460, 469 (Me.1981)).

1994For that reason, we review her allegation of prosecutorial misconduct for obvious error, M.R.Crim.P. 52; M.R.Evid. 103(a)(1), to determine whether “‘the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to the defendant thereby are so great that the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand.’ ” State v. Tripp, 634 A.2d 1318, 1320 (Me.1994) (quoting State v. Dube, 598 A.2d 742, 744 (Me.1991)).