Opinion ID: 1942700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instructions respecting aggravation

Text: The defendant claims that the Justice below expressed an opinion on facts contrary to the provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105, when in his instructions to the jury he first explained to them that the distinctive feature between a simple assault and battery and one of an aggravated nature lay in the seriousness of the assault and battery, and then followed that broad instructional concept with supportive specific examples such as these: If I slap you across the face, Mr. Hart [jury foreman], and perhaps make a red mark on your face with my hand, then I would think there would be no question about the fact, and again all of the other elements being present, I had committed an assault and battery on you. It would be classified as a misdemeanor, simple assault and battery; the circumstances under which this occurred would not under our present standards be considered to be a serious or aggravated type of assault. On the other hand, if I stabbed you with a knife or, if I hit you over the head with an axe, or a bar, or a piece of wood or shot you with a gun,       I think the difference between what is an aggravated assault and what is a simple assault is something that your common sense and intelligence would recognize without a great deal of difficulty. Look at the totality of the circumstances. You look at, who are the people involved in this. The nature and extent of the injury may be a factor of determining whether or not it is a simple assault or an aggravated assault.       And so, you consider the totality of the people, the circumstances, the nature of the injury, the type of weapon that was used, the consequences that could flow from the use of that particular device in order to inflict that particular injury. Maybe the defendant who was wielding this particular piece of equipment didn't intend to do much harm. Because of the very nature of what it was he was using, and the manner in which he was using it, he should have known that it was capable of inflicting a serious injury, even a mortal injury upon the person, and, therefore, his conduct, act, and results of his conduct and act became more serious and therefore are aggravated. So you will have to examine the circumstances in this case and determine first: Was there an assault and battery committed here in accordance with the guidelines I have given to you. If you find there is no assault and battery on the basis of principles I have told you of, then of course you stop right there, you don't have to go any farther. Your verdict is then not guilty. If you find there was an assault and battery committed by this defendant upon Mr. Gilbert, and you have no reasonable doubt, you then have to determine whether or not you find the assault was of a high and aggravated nature, or whether or not it was a simple assault and your verdict, as you will return it, Mr. Hart, will reflect the jury's finding in that particular area. (Emphasis ours) It is axiomatic in a criminal case that, by his plea of not guilty, an accused puts in issue each essential element of the crime charged against him, and the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each necessary ingredient of the criminal accusation. State v. Davis, Me., 384 A.2d 45 (1978); State v. Liberty, Me., 280 A.2d 805, 807 (1971); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). True, the crime of assault and battery is a unitary offense, whether simple or aggravated, and the factual circumstances which establish the degree of criminal culpability and determine the severity of the sentence are not elements of the crime itself. State v. Pinnette, Me., 340 A.2d 17, 25 (1975); State v. Davenport, Me., 326 A.2d 1, 9 (1974); State v. Ferris, Me., 249 A.2d 523, 527 (1969). Nevertheless, the burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense of assault and battery is of a high and aggravated nature. State v. Ferris, supra, at 528. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 699, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1890, 44 L.Ed.2d 508, at note 24 (1975). Our system of criminal justice, to attain just and efficient results, cannot allow juries to speculate as to what conduct the law proscribes by a specific criminal statute. Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the trial judge to instruct the jury as to the fundamental principles of law which control the case. State v. Butler, 27 N.J. 560, 143 A.2d 530, 550 (1958). See also Claybrooks v. State, 50 Wis.2d 87, 183 N.W.2d 143 (1971); People v. Pepper, 389 Mich. 317, 206 N.W.2d 439 (1973); State v. McHenry, 13 Wash.App. 421, 535 P.2d 843 (1975). We said in State v. Devoe, Me., 301 A.2d 541 (1973): What constitutes `aggravation' is neither self-explanatory nor capable of accurate definition in the abstract. The concept assumes substance and meaning to a jury only when related to facts and events. This and other courts have, of necessity, recognized certain sets of circumstances whereby what otherwise would be a simple assault is elevated to a higher grade, namely, aggravated assault, depending upon the proof. The defendant contends that the use of the specific examples of hitting the victim over the head with an axe, or a bar, or a piece of wood by the defendant as being conduct and an act more serious and therefore aggravated was tantamount to an expression of opinion on the facts contrary to 14 M.R.S.A., § 1105. We disagree. The correctness of the court's instructions to the jury is to be determined from the entirety of the charge and not from isolated extracts therefrom. State v. Devoe, supra, at 546; State v. Gagne, Me., 349 A.2d 193, 197 (1975). It is only when the trial justice, in his allusion to the facts of the case, gives an authoritative or binding directive to the jury as to what their findings should be respecting a factual question that there would be a transgression of the statutory proscription against the expression of an opinion upon issues of fact on the part of a presiding justice. It is the authoritative expression of an opinion as to an issue of fact arising in the case which the statute prohibits, and not the suggestion of an obvious inference from admitted facts and circumstances made to assist the jury in coming to a clear understanding of the law and the evidence. State v. Mathews, 115 Me. 84, 97 A. 824 (1916). See also Benner v. Benner, 120 Me. 468, 115 A. 202 (1921). In the instant case, it is clear to us that the charge as a whole did not violate the mandate of 14 M.R.S.A., § 1105; it did not usurp the jury function. It is obvious from the entirety of the charge the presiding Justice believed that, if the injury sustained by the victim at the hands of the defendant were proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have been inflicted through the use of any of the weapons alluded to in the examples submitted to the jury, the assault and battery, provided the jury did conclude there was an assault and battery under the legal principles he had explained to them, would be of a high and aggravated nature. This instruction was circumscribed by the Justice's clear admonition at the beginning of the charge that they, the jury, are the sole judges of the facts and by his concluding statement which expressly left to the jury to determine, if they did find there was an assault and battery committed by this defendant upon Mr. Gilbert beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not the assault and battery was of a high and aggravated nature. The defendant's complaint in this regard is not well taken. See State v. Devoe, supra; State v. Ryder, Me., 348 A.2d 1 (1975).