Opinion ID: 2178431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Error in instructions of the Court to the jury.

Text: The defendant ascribes legal error in the Court's omission to give the jury sufficiently precise guidelines respecting the requirement of an overt act in attempted sodomy and in specifically conveying to the jury the fact that the defendant had changed his plea to guilty on the charge of fellatio. Rule 30(b), M.R.Crim.P., reads in part: No party shall assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. The record reveals that the only exception taken to the charge by the defendant related solely to the crime of sodomy and concerned the question of penetration; this objection became immaterial when the defendant was acquitted of that crime and convicted of an attempt only. The Justice below, when closing his instructions upon certain aspects of his charge, inquired from counsel as to whether there were further requests for instructions. On six separate occasions, counsel for the defendant indicated that he had none. In State v. Boisvert, 1967, Me., 236 A.2d 419, this Court emphasized that the requirements of Rule 30(b) were not to be construed as mere formality. We there pointed out that the purpose of the rule was not simply to preserve the defendant's right to a new trial, but also to make possible at the original trial a correction in the judge's charge so that the jury may be properly instructed and a new trial avoided. This object of the rule would be completely frustrated if no sanctions were applicable for its violation in the form of waiver. A defendant who fails to object to the charge and offers no request for further instructions upon a specific irregularity or alleged error waives any complaint with respect thereto. State v. James, 1965, 161 Me. 17, 206 A.2d 410; State v. Richards, 1893, 85 Me. 252, 27 A. 122. Again, in this instance, we have carefully reviewed the record and cannot say that the Justice's charge as given created such a manifest danger of prejudice to the defendant as to entitle him to a new trial.