State v. Thorne

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Thorne

456 A.2d 12, 1983 Me. LEXIS 615

DecidedFebruary 15, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 456 A.2d 12 (State v. Thorne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Thorne, 456 A.2d 12, 1983 Me. LEXIS 615 (Me. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

[13]*13MEMORANDUM DECISION.

The Defendant, Fred J. Thorne, appeals his conviction of one count of nonsupport of dependents (Class E), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 552, following a jury trial in Superior Court, Washington County, which was the county where the complaint was brought. We affirm that conviction.

First, the Defendant argues that the Superior Court erred in failing to rule on two motions for change of venue. We must treat the motions for change of venue as having been denied by the Superior Court. The record before us fails to even hint at, much less establish, “a climate of hostility toward the defendant so infecting the community that he could not obtain a fair trial therein.” State v. Pritchett, 302 A.2d 101, 104 (Me.1973). We perceive no error.

Second, the Defendant contends that the Superior Court erred in orally amending the complaint by deleting that portion of the offense charged which fell outside of the statute of limitations.¹ This amendment was effected by the court before trial with notice to both the Defendant and the State. Because no objection was raised then or at trial,² we review only for “seriously prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.” State v. Powell, 452 A.2d 977, 978 (Me.1982). The reduction of the time period encompassed by the complaint in no way prejudiced the Defendant; accordingly, no manifest injustice resulted.

Finally, the Defendant challenges the jury instructions given by the Superior Court and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Our review of the record at trial convinces us that neither claim has merit.

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[13]*13MEMORANDUM DECISION.

The Defendant, Fred J. Thorne, appeals his conviction of one count of nonsupport of dependents (Class E), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 552, following a jury trial in Superior Court, Washington County, which was the county where the complaint was brought. We affirm that conviction.

First, the Defendant argues that the Superior Court erred in failing to rule on two motions for change of venue. We must treat the motions for change of venue as having been denied by the Superior Court. The record before us fails to even hint at, much less establish, “a climate of hostility toward the defendant so infecting the community that he could not obtain a fair trial therein.” State v. Pritchett, 302 A.2d 101, 104 (Me.1973). We perceive no error.

Second, the Defendant contends that the Superior Court erred in orally amending the complaint by deleting that portion of the offense charged which fell outside of the statute of limitations.¹ This amendment was effected by the court before trial with notice to both the Defendant and the State. Because no objection was raised then or at trial,² we review only for “seriously prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.” State v. Powell, 452 A.2d 977, 978 (Me.1982). The reduction of the time period encompassed by the complaint in no way prejudiced the Defendant; accordingly, no manifest injustice resulted.

Finally, the Defendant challenges the jury instructions given by the Superior Court and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Our review of the record at trial convinces us that neither claim has merit.

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 A.2d 12, 1983 Me. LEXIS 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thorne-me-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack