Opinion ID: 2314474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of motions for continuance or mistrial

Text: The flexibility provided by section 351 permitting an accusation of theft to be proved by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be theft under the several sections pertaining to the crime of theft, notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the charging document, is not absolute. Protection is afforded the accused, in that the reference section empowers the court to ensure a fair trial by granting a continuance or other appropriate relief if the conduct of the defense would be prejudiced by lack of fair notice or by surprise. We do recognize that, by reason of the interchangeable adaptability of the criminal pleading in the charge of theft to the proof of any of the several modes of committing the crime as permitted by section 351, greater awareness and extrasensitivity on the part of the State and the trial court should be brought to bear, especially where the accusation is couched in the broad terminology of theft by unauthorized taking, so that the accused will not be unduly prejudiced in the preparation of his defense by lack of fair notice or by surprise. In the instant case, however, the State gave notice in the caption of the indictment that it would be proceeding under Section 353 as required by Rule 7(c), M.R.Crim.P. and there was no shift in its position during the course of the trial. The defendant made no offer of proof at the trial court level, nor before this court, how he may have been prejudiced by the State's proof of theft by deception. The defendant's bald assertion of surprise because of the variance between the allegations of the indictment charging theft by unauthorized taking and the proof of facts showing theft by deception in and of itself does not bring him within the relief exception of section 351. The defendant is presumed to know the law. See State v. Viger, Me., 392 A.2d 1080, 1085-86 (1978). In conclusion, there was no error in the Superior Court's denial of the defendant's motions for continuance or for mistrial. Finally, the defendant's claim of error in relation to the charge to the jury was fully considered by us and found to be without merit. The entry will be: Appeal denied. Judgments of conviction affirmed. McKUSICK, C.J., NICHOLS, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ., concur.