State v. Standring

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Ian P. Standring’s convictions for gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and sexual abuse of a minor. The court held that a variance between the dates alleged in the indictment and the dates supported by the evidence did not prejudice the defendant, where the offense remained within the statute of limitations and the indictment provided adequate notice.

Holdings

1. A variance between the dates alleged in an indictment and the dates proved at trial is not material or fatal when the variance does not affect the statute of limitations and does not prejudice the defendant.
2. The date discrepancy did not prejudice Standring and therefore did not warrant judgment of acquittal.
3. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions and did not plainly require a sua sponte mistrial.
4. The court would not consider Standring's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Standring's motion for judgment of acquittal on a gross-sexual-assault count because the dates proved at trial differed from the dates alleged in the indictment.
2. Whether the date variance prejudiced Standring or rendered the indictment constitutionally or procedurally inadequate.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte.
4. Whether an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim could be considered on direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed