Opinion ID: 2298911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent at the Time of Unlawful Entry

Text: The trial justice instructed the jury on the elements of burglary. Defendant complains about the following instruction regarding the intent with which an unlawful entry is made: In respect to the third matter, the third critical element, the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Atkinson intended to deprive, intended to commit theft in respect to the property in the garage. Thereafter the jury was instructed regarding theft by unauthorized taking or transfer as charged in Count II of the indictment. Defendant claims that the trial justice erred by failing to instruct the jury explicitly that the crime of burglary requires proof that the actor's intent to commit a crime within the unlawfully entered structure must exist at the time of entry. Since defendant neither objected to the instructions actually given nor requested alternative instructions, we review only for obvious error affecting substantial rights. State v. Guay, 451 A.2d 631, 633 (Me.1982). Reviewing the instructions in their entirety, we think they made sufficiently clear to the jury that the requisite intent had to exist at the time of the unlawful entry. There was no obvious error affecting defendant's substantial rights.