State of Maine v. Adam Delano, 111 A.3d 648

On Sept. 16, 2012, victim at a Portland homeless encampment was called out of his tent and brutally beaten; injuries included skull fracture, brain bleeding, rib fractures, collapsed lung, month-long hospitalization and coma.
Adam Delano was indicted for elevated aggravated assault (Class A, 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A)) and tried in Sept. 2013; jury heard eyewitnesses, police, medical/forensic experts, and a police interview of Delano (he denied involvement).
Trial court instructed the jury on the charged elevated aggravated assault and two lesser included offenses (aggravated assault and simple assault), but initially omitted one statutory alternative theory of aggravated assault (§ 208(1)(A): causing serious bodily injury).
Jury began deliberations; after overnight recess and a morning request by the State, the court reinstructed the jury to add the omitted § 208(1)(A) theory, replacing written instructions; Delano objected.
Jury could not agree on elevated aggravated assault but convicted Delano of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault; Delano appealed claiming (1) improper late reinstruction and (2) erroneous refusal to give a self-defense instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court’s reinstruction (adding § 208(1)(A) aggravated-assault theory after deliberations began) was prejudicial	State: reinstruction corrected a court error; the instruction was requested by both parties originally and did not prejudice Delano	Delano: late presentation of an additional theory during deliberations risked juror confusion, coercion, and deprived him of a fair trial	Reinstruction was not reversible error: no demonstrated prejudice (no surprise, instruction was correct, court neutrally framed correction, jury deliberated further before convicting)
Whether trial court erred in refusing to give a self-defense instruction	State: evidence did not generate self-defense; injuries were far beyond what could be justified	Delano: eyewitness statements and his post-event statements raised a self-defense theory (victim swung a backpack; alleged robbery/assault)	No error: evidence, viewed most favorably to Delano, could not reasonably support hypothesis that deadly or nondeadly force used was necessary or justified given severity of victim’s injuries

State v. LaPierre, 754 A.2d 978 (Me. 2000) (late reinstruction on lesser offenses permissible only in exceptional circumstances; elements must be stated separately to avoid confusion)
United States v. Welbeck, 145 F.3d 493 (2d Cir. 1998) (additional lesser-offense instructions given after deliberations are not per se prejudicial but can be coercive)
State v. Thurston, 969 A.2d 906 (Me. 2009) (self-defense instruction required only when evidence is sufficient to generate the defense)
State v. Ouellette, 37 A.3d 921 (Me. 2012) (articulating standard for when evidence "generates" a self-defense instruction)