Opinion ID: 4526093
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lindell’s Definition of “Conduct”

Text: [¶18] First, Lindell argues that the court erred by declining to instruct the jury on his proffered definition of the word “conduct,” which, in turn, he argues was relevant for determining whether the court had proper jurisdiction.8 With regard to the preamble to the court’s count-by-count instructions, Lindell asked that the court instruct the jury that “conduct” means “voluntary bodily movement,” analogous to “act,” as defined in 17-A M.R.S. § 2(1) (2018). The court declined to so instruct the jury, concluding that the two words did not share a common definition. Instead, the court instructed as follows: “Concerning all of these offenses, a person may be convicted under the laws of this State for any crime committed by the person’s own conduct when the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct that is an element of the offense occurs within this State.” [¶19] Lindell has failed to demonstrate that his requested instruction was an accurate statement of the law, was not misleading, and was not covered 8 See infra ¶¶ 23-25. 13 by the court’s given instructions. Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, ¶ 16, 38 A.3d 1278. “Conduct” is not defined in the Maine criminal code, see generally 17-A M.R.S. § 2, and Lindell failed to cite any law or other type of authority in support of his position. Without any authority supporting his claim that “conduct” was a term of art, the jury was entitled to interpret the word within its common meaning. State v. Hall, 2019 ME 126, ¶ 28, 214 A.3d 19 (“[W]hen a term is not defined in a statute, a jury can generally determine the meaning of the term by common sense.”) He has not shown that the narrow definition he proposed was an accurate statement of the law (prong one) or was not misleading (prong three). Further, his proposed definition could reasonably be encompassed in the jury’s commonsense interpretation (prong four). See, e.g., id.; Conduct, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Thus, the court did not err by declining to instruct the jury as to Lindell’s proposed definition of “conduct.”