Opinion ID: 2267814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: defense of a third person

Text: The defendant had seasonably submitted the following requested instruction, which was refused: You are instructed that if you find that Defendant, Robert M. Thompson, went to the defense of a friend, Gary Wylie, and if you find that at that time Gary Wylie was being illegally arrested and/or assaulted by persons unknown, and if you find that Defendant, Robert M. Thompson, used no more force than was necessary to stop the assault or arrest, then Robert M. Thompson was acting within his legal rights in coming to the defense of a third party, and as a result, you must find the Defendant, Robert M. Thompson, not guilty of assault and battery. Initially we must determine whether the defendant has complied with the provisions of Rule 30(b), M.R.Crim.P., which provides in pertinent 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.. . . After the charge was completed, the defendant once again requested that his proposed instructions be given, although he did not specifically object to the Court's failure to charge the jury as requested. In State v. Thibodeau, 353 A.2d 595, 605 (Me.1976), we recently held that the mere submission of requested instructions is not sufficient compliance with the requirements of Rule 30(b), M.R.Crim.P. See also United States v. DeCarlo, 458 F. 2d 358, 370 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 843, 93 S.Ct. 112, 34 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972); Ryan v. United States, 314 F.2d 306, 310 (10th Cir. 1963). See generally, Glassman, Maine Practice, § 30.4 at 234. In State v. Boisvert, 236 A.2d 419, 422 (Me.1967), we stated that [t]he purpose for the rule [30(b)] is not simply to preserve the defendant's right to a new trial in case of erroneous instruction but also to make possible a correction in the judge's charge so that the jury may be properly instructed at this trial. The presiding Justice was fully aware of the defendant's requested instruction, which was specifically brought to his attention twice before the jury retired, and had ample opportunity to decide whether the proposed instruction should be given. The defendant has complied with the underlying spirit of Rule 30(b) and has preserved his point for appellate review. We now proceed to consider the claim that it was error to refuse to instruct the jury on the right of a person, in appropriate circumstances, to use reasonable force in defense of a third party. The record reveals that the Justice below was of the belief that a right to use force to protect another was not recognized in this state. [3] We hold that the defendant was entitled to neither the specific instruction he requested, nor any instruction dealing with the third-person defense justification. In order to be entitled to a requested instruction, the record must contain sufficient evidence to generate that issue for the jury's consideration. We have so held in numerous circumstances. See, e. g., State v. Inman, 350 A.2d 582, 586 (Me. 1976) (manslaughter instruction); State v. Matheson, 363 A.2d 716, 722 (Me.1976) (instructions on entrapment defense); State v. Millett, 273 A.2d 504, 510-11 (Me.1971) (instructions on self-defense); State v. Park, 159 Me. 328, 193 A.2d 1 (1963) (manslaughter instruction in a murder case). Here, the defendant testified that he observed his friend being assaulted by a police officer. However, on cross-examination he admitted that the officer he eventually struck was not the same officer allegedly assaulting his friend. [4] The evidence offered by the defendant on the issue of third-person defense was self-defeating. See State v. Millett, 273 A.2d at 510. The defendant's assertion that he used force to protect his friend from an illegal assault is inconsistent with his testimony at trial that he struck a police officer, against whom his friend needed no protection. [5] We therefore conclude that the presiding Justice properly (albeit for the wrong reason) declined to instruct the jury on the third-person defense justification. The entry is: Appeal denied.