Court Opinion

ID: 9703455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:57:40.675778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:48.253340
License: Public Domain

GODFREY, Justice,
concurring in the result:
I agree with the rest of the Court that the trial justice did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to acquit.
Defendant did not ask for an instruction relating to his capability of having the knowledge or intention requisite for commission of the crime of terrorizing, and he offered no objection to, 'or amendment of, the trial justice’s instructions to the jury. Those instructions set forth correctly and with some emphasis the State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly. Although the instructions did not highlight any issue of the defendant’s capability of having the requisite mental state, they cannot be said, in the absence of objection or request by counsel, to have contained any “obvious error or defects” within the meaning of Rule 52(b), M.R.Crim.P. Certainly, on the instructions given, the jury could have found defendant guilty only after considering whether he had the necessary knowledge or intention and deciding that he did. .
With the case in such a posture, it is not necessary to decide on this appeal whether any issue of defendant’s capability of having the requisite knowledge or intent was generated at the trial below. There having been no error, the judgment should be affirmed.