Opinion ID: 2315430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court's instruction

Text: Last, the defendant contends reversible error took place when the presiding justice instructed the jury it may presume the defendant committed the burglary if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that a burglary occurred and the defendant was in exclusive possession of the property taken in the burglary. Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2) provides proof that the theft or robbery occurred under circumstances constituting a violation of section 401 also shall give rise to a presumption that the defendant in exclusive possession of property recently so taken is guilty of the burglary. Although this provision is phrased in terms of a presumption, we have previously made clear the statute addresses reasonable inferences that can be drawn from facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and not presumptions in the literal sense. See State v. King, 379 A.2d 131, 133-34 (Me. 1977) (error to instruct in terms of presumption; word presumption intended to be synonomous with permissible inference); M.R.Evid. 303(c) (1984) (court in criminal case should charge in terms of reasonable inference, not presumption); see also State v. Rand, 430 A.2d 808 (Me.1981). Therefore, the presiding justice was in error when initially instructing the jury in terms of a presumption. Such error, however, does not constitute a ground for vacating the judgment. Upon the objection of defense counsel, the presiding justice corrected his mistake, and changed his instruction from one of presumption to one of reasonable inference. A presiding justice has a right to correct an instruction to the jury before it retires, and jurors are duty-bound to ignore any part of the charge withdrawn. State v. Cox, 138 Me. 151, 172, 23 A.2d 634, 645 (1942); State v. Derry, 118 Me. 431, 433, 108 A. 568, 569 (1920). In the absence of any showing of prejudice, we will not vacate a verdict on the basis of a mistaken instruction, when the court has taken prompt and adequate steps to correct it. The defendant has shown no such prejudice. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.