delivery instruction in Maine

2025See State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, ¶ 34 , 179 A.3d 910 (“If a defendant explicitly waives the delivery of an instruction or makes a strategic or tactical decision not to request it, we will decline to engage in 10 2022 ME 10, ¶ 35 , 268 A.3d 281 (“If an issue is unpreserved, we will review it only for obvious error.”) [¶15] “For an error or defect to be obvious for purposes of Rule 52(b), there must be (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.

2025See State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, ¶ 34 , 179 A.3d 910 (“If a defendant explicitly waives the delivery of an instruction or makes a strategic or tactical decision not to request it, we will decline to engage in 10 2022 ME 10, ¶ 35 , 268 A.3d 281 (“If an issue is unpreserved, we will review it only for obvious error.”) [¶15] “For an error or defect to be obvious for purposes of Rule 52(b), there must be (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.

2021The State argues that Cardilli explicitly waived his right to challenge this issue on appeal by not requesting that the trial court apply section 108(2)(A). [¶33] “If a defendant explicitly waives the delivery of an instruction or makes a strategic or tactical decision not to request it, we will decline to engage in appellate review, even for obvious error.” State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, ¶ 34 , 179 A.3d 910 ; State v. Ford, 2013 ME 96, ¶ 16 , 82 A.3d 75 (“[Section] 101(1) . . . specif[ies] that a trial court is not required to instruct on an affirmative defense that has been waived by the defen

2021The State argues that Cardilli explicitly waived his right to challenge this issue on appeal by not requesting that the trial court apply section 108(2)(A). [¶33] “If a defendant explicitly waives the delivery of an instruction or makes a strategic or tactical decision not to request it, we will decline to engage in appellate review, even for obvious error.” State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, ¶ 34 , 179 A.3d 910 ; State v. Ford, 2013 ME 96, ¶ 16 , 82 A.3d 75 (“[Section] 101(1) . . . specif[ies] that a trial court is not required to instruct on an affirmative defense that has been waived by the defen

2025See State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, ¶ 34 , 179 A.3d 910 (“If a defendant explicitly waives the delivery of an instruction or makes a strategic or tactical decision not to request it, we will decline to engage in 10 2022 ME 10, ¶ 35 , 268 A.3d 281 (“If an issue is unpreserved, we will review it only for obvious error.”) [¶15] “For an error or defect to be obvious for purposes of Rule 52(b), there must be (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.

2025See State v. Nobles, 2018 ME 26, ¶ 34 , 179 A.3d 910 (“If a defendant explicitly waives the delivery of an instruction or makes a strategic or tactical decision not to request it, we will decline to engage in 10 2022 ME 10, ¶ 35 , 268 A.3d 281 (“If an issue is unpreserved, we will review it only for obvious error.”) [¶15] “For an error or defect to be obvious for purposes of Rule 52(b), there must be (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.

2024See State v. Scott, 2019 ME 105, ¶ 20 , 211 A.3d 205 (“By expressly declining a curative instruction for strategic reasons and not otherwise moving for a mistrial, Scott failed to preserve for appellate review the admissibility of the homeowner’s statement or any potential prejudice flowing therefrom.”); State v. Rega, 2005 ME 5, ¶ 17 , 863 A.2d 917 (withdrawing an objection precludes review; “[w]hen a party affirmatively agrees to a court action, that party has failed to 12 preserve the action for appellate review”); State v. Cardilli, 2021 ME 31, ¶ 33 , 254 A.3d 415 (“If a defendant explicit

2024See State v. Scott, 2019 ME 105, ¶ 20 , 211 A.3d 205 (“By expressly declining a curative instruction for strategic reasons and not otherwise moving for a mistrial, Scott failed to preserve for appellate review the admissibility of the homeowner’s statement or any potential prejudice flowing therefrom.”); State v. Rega, 2005 ME 5, ¶ 17 , 863 A.2d 917 (withdrawing an objection precludes review; “[w]hen a party affirmatively agrees to a court action, that party has failed to 12 preserve the action for appellate review”); State v. Cardilli, 2021 ME 31, ¶ 33 , 254 A.3d 415 (“If a defendant explicit

2022We held that the delivery of warnings did not render the driver’s consent involuntary and that “consent given in response to the Maine warnings does not represent mere acquiescence.” Id. ¶ 31 (quotation marks omitted); see also Ayotte, 2019 ME 61, ¶ 10 , 207 A.3d 614 (affirming a conclusion that the driver voluntarily consented after an officer provided the statutory warnings regarding the consequences of refusal).

2022We held that the delivery of warnings did not render the driver’s consent involuntary and that “consent given in response to the Maine warnings does not represent mere acquiescence.” Id. ¶ 31 (quotation marks omitted); see also Ayotte, 2019 ME 61, ¶ 10 , 207 A.3d 614 (affirming a conclusion that the driver voluntarily consented after an officer provided the statutory warnings regarding the consequences of refusal).

2017See State v. Gagne, 2017 ME 63, ¶¶ 29-30 , 159 A.3d 316 (concluding that the State’s production of medical records a week before trial did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial); State v. Gould, 2012 ME 60, ¶¶ 7, 25-26 , 43 A.3d 952 (concluding that the State’s delivery of test results to the defendant a half hour before the start of trial was not an unreasonable delay under the circumstances); State v. Kelly, 2000 ME 107 , ¶ 26 n.11, 752 A.2d 188 (concluding that there was no error when the defendant was aware of the exculpatory evidence before trial). [¶24] Here, the State did not concea

2017See State v. Gagne, 2017 ME 63, ¶¶ 29-30 , 159 A.3d 316 (concluding that the State’s production of medical records a week before trial did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial); State v. Gould, 2012 ME 60, ¶¶ 7, 25-26 , 43 A.3d 952 (concluding that the State’s delivery of test results to the defendant a half hour before the start of trial was not an unreasonable delay under the circumstances); State v. Kelly, 2000 ME 107 , ¶ 26 n.11, 752 A.2d 188 (concluding that there was no error when the defendant was aware of the exculpatory evidence before trial). [¶24] Here, the State did not concea

2017See State v. Gagne, 2017 ME 63, ¶¶ 29-30 , 159 A.3d 316 (concluding that the State’s production of medical records a week before trial did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial); State v. Gould, 2012 ME 60, ¶¶ 7, 25-26 , 43 A.3d 952 (concluding that the State’s delivery of test results to the defendant a half hour before the start of trial was not an unreasonable delay under the circumstances); State v. Kelly, 2000 ME 107 , ¶ 26 n.11, 752 A.2d 188 (concluding that there was no error when the defendant was aware of the exculpatory evidence before trial). [¶24] Here, the State did not concea

2017See State v. Gagne, 2017 ME 63, ¶¶ 29-30 , 159 A.3d 316 (concluding that the State’s production of medical records a week before trial did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial); State v. Gould, 2012 ME 60, ¶¶ 7, 25-26 , 43 A.3d 952 (concluding that the State’s delivery of test results to the defendant a half hour before the start of trial was not an unreasonable delay under the circumstances); State v. Kelly, 2000 ME 107 , ¶ 26 n.11, 752 A.2d 188 (concluding that there was no error when the defendant was aware of the exculpatory evidence before trial). [¶24] Here, the State did not concea