Opinion ID: 2322764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Points Three, Four and Five

Text: Appellant contends that the presiding Justice committed three errors in his instructions to the jury: (1) The instruction regarding evidence of proof of the date of the actual criminal act was erroneous. (2) The instructions failed to define properly the elements of larceny. (3) The instruction relating the element of intent to the acts of breaking and entering was incomplete and confusing to the jury. The record indicates that no objection to any of these instructions was seasonably entered as mandated by M.R. Crim.P., Rule 30(b). Thus, appellant's belated challenge will not be considered by this Court absent [o]bvious errors or defects affecting substantial rights. M.R. Crim.P., Rule 52(b). The gratuitous instruction regarding the State's duty to prove an actual date was technically incorrect in that it did not restrict the permissible period of proof to six years prior to the date of the indictment. See 15 M.R.S.A. § 452; State v. Morin, 149 Me. 279, 284, 100 A.2d 657, 659 (1953). However, the precise date of the illegal entry was not a material issue at trial since there was no variance between the date proved by the State and the date alleged in the indictment, namely, August 10, 1971. Under the circumstances appellant's rights were in no way affected and this technical inaccuracy may be disregarded as harmless error. M.R.Crim.P., Rule 52(a). Because our examination of the instructions discloses no error or defect, we do not consider the final two points as having been properly preserved for appellate review. M.R.Crim.P., Rule 52(b). See State v. Boisvert, 236 A.2d 419, 422 (Me. 1967); State v. Simpson, 276 A.2d 292, 294 (Me.1971); State v. Girard, 283 A.2d 462, 463-464 (Me.1971). The entry is: Appeal denied. [5] POMEROY, J., did not sit.