Opinion ID: 1973139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Instructions on Depraved Indifference Murder

Text: At trial, the presiding justice followed the holding in State v. Woodbury, Me., 403 A.2d 1166, 1171-1173 (1979), in his instructions to the jury on the charge of depraved indifference murder, § 201(1)(B), [1] instructing that it is not necessary to prove that the defendant, Mr. Flick, in fact himself had a depraved indifference to the value of human life, rather the jury should look at his conduct and askhas the State proven that his conduct had such a high risk of causing death, was so heinous that mankind in general would say that such conduct could only result from a depraved indifference to the value of human life. . . . On appeal, the defendant argues for the first time that Woodbury was wrongly decided, and that § 201(1)(B) must, under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11, be construed to require proof of one of the culpable states of mind defined in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 10, since no legislative intent to impose liability without a culpable mental state otherwise appears (§ 11(5)(B)). The charge must be reviewed for obvious error . . . affecting substantial rights. M.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Lee, Me., 404 A.2d 983, 984, n.1 (1979). A charge which strictly conformed to a current Law Court opinion squarely on point could hardly be called manifest error. We reject defendant's contentions, and decline to change our ruling in State v. Woodbury, supra .