Opinion ID: 2061712
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion for a Bill of Particulars

Text: Prior to trial the Defendant filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars in which he moved that the State be ordered to file a Bill of Particulars stating the matters to be given in evidence against the Defendant. (Emphasis added.) We assume that this motion was filed pursuant to M.R.Crim.P. Rule 7(f). [1] The motion was denied over the Defendant's objection. The record discloses a Motion for Discovery which contains sixteen requested items, many of which could be evidentiary in nature. The Motion for Discovery was granted on February 20, 1968, and there is no evidence that the State failed to conform faithfully to the order allowing discovery. In ruling on the Motion for a Bill of Particulars the Presiding Justice, having this background in mind, decided that there was no occasion to grant the motion. In fact, the record discloses that Defense Counsel was asked if there had been a compliance with the Order for Discovery and he responded, As far as I know, it has been complied with. In the commentary under this rule (§ 7.14) Professor Glassman states: It is not the function of a Bill of Particulars to disclose in detail the evidence upon which the prosecution will rely,   . The grant or denial of a Motion for a Bill of Particulars is a matter which rests within the discretion of the trial court and the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.    The record before us discloses no abuse of discretion.