Opinion ID: 1910680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Judicial Expression of Opinion

Text: Fisher next argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the presiding justice, during his charge to the jury, violated the admonition of 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105, which provides: During a jury trial the presiding justice . . . shall not, during the trial, including the charge, express an opinion upon issues of fact arising in the case. . . . This statute serves the salutary purpose of ensuring judicial impartiality and authorizes granting a new trial upon evidence of its violation. See State v. Scholtz, Me., 392 A.2d 1101 (1978), and cases therein cited. We have reviewed the jury instructions in their entirety. We disagree with Fisher that Section 1105 was violated. The justice engaged in a balancing process when commenting on the facts during the course of his jury instructions, the purpose being to illustrate the distinction between important and unimportant facts and how the jury should weigh competing testimony to determine relative weight in a search for ultimate truth. Our reading of the charge discloses an even-handed use of this balancing technique and, on the facts of this case, a helpful device for the jury where minor and peripheral facts were in dispute, as were major facts critical to the ultimate question of guilt or innocence. There was no error.