Opinion ID: 1922618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Written Instructions

Text: [¶ 43] Lockhart contends that because the court's written jury instructions included an explanation of how to infer intentional and knowing conduct but failed to restate the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the written instructions unfairly emphasized the duty of the jury to infer the presence of intentional or knowing conduct from surrounding circumstances, with the consequence of prejudicially favoring the State over the defendant. The State responds that because Lockhart did not object to the instructions before they were delivered to the jury, he waived any objection and should be barred from raising this issue on appeal. [¶ 44] The court may choose to provide written instructions to the jury covering all or a part of what is orally provided. M.R.Crim. P. 30(b). Before written instructions are provided to the jury, the parties should be given the opportunity to review the instructions, suggest alterations, object to the language of the instructions, and, if necessary, preserve those objections. State v. Knox, 2003 ME 39, ¶ 6, 819 A.2d 1011, 1013. Here, defense counsel did not object to the absence of an explanation of the State's proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the proposed written instructions when they were discussed by counsel and the judge in chambers, after closing arguments, and after the oral instructions were delivered. Because Lockhart failed to object to the instructions, they are reviewed for obvious error. There is no obvious error because the spoken instructions correctly explained the jury's task with respect to the State's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the spoken and written instructions as a whole, the trial court did not err by failing to repeat its spoken reasonable doubt instruction in its written instructions. [4]