State v. Dill

GODFREY, Justice.

Two questions of substance are presented by this appeal: first, the sufficiency of the indictment under which defendant was convicted after a jury-waived trial, and, second, the effect of a certain variance between the indictment and the proof submitted by the State.

The indictment, purporting by its caption to be one for “violation of 17 M. R.S.A. § 1601 (selling mortgaged property)”, charged Dill in the following language:

“On or about the 3rd day of December, 1975, at Lewiston, County of An-droscoggin, State of Maine, the above-named defendant James E. Dill, did unlawfully,…