Case Name: STATE of Maine v. Michael S. DAIGLE
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1987-05-15
Citations: 525 A.2d 220
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Maine v. Michael S. DAIGLE.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 525
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
STATE of Maine v. Michael S. DAIGLE.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued April 28, 1987.
Decided May 15, 1987.
Mary Tousignant, Dist. Atty., David Gregory (orally), Alfred, for plaintiff.
Alan E. Shepard (orally), Kearns, Shepard & Read, Kennebunkport, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
Michael S. Daigle appeals his robbery conviction, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651(B)(1) (1983), entered after a jury trial in Superior Court, York County. Daigle challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the amendment of the indictment and the denial of a requested jury instruction on the termination of accomplice liability, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 57(5XC) (1983). We conclude that there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury rationally could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Daigle was guilty of the crime charged. See State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). The amendment of the indictment as to form only was properly allowed. See State v. Hathorne, 387 A.2d 9, 13 (Me.1978). Finally, the requested jury instruction was properly denied because the issue was not generated by the evidence. See State v. Knowles, 495 A.2d 335, 338 (Me.1985).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.