Opinion ID: 2329095
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Theft By Unauthorized Taking or Transfer

Text: [¶ 27] Although Bouchard did not object to the court's jury instruction regarding theft by unauthorized taking or transfer, he contends on appeal that the court erred by omitting the word unauthorized in its recitation of the elements of the offense. We again review the instruction for obvious error affecting substantial rights. See M.R.Crim. P. 52(b); Small, 2000 ME 182, ¶ 5, 763 A.2d at 105. [¶ 28] We review the jury instructions in their entirety to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law. State v. Lemieux, 2001 ME 46, ¶ 2, 767 A.2d 295, 296 (quotation marks omitted). The substance of Bouchard's trial was his use of the State fuel credit card to obtain cash for unauthorized purposes. The entire trial was centered on whether Bouchard's use of the State credit card was authorized. When the jury instructions are viewed in their entirety, the omission of the word unauthorized from part of the jury instructions does not constitute obvious error.