responding to defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the videotape from admission into evidence, the trial justice ruled that the audio recorder in the video camera was “the acquiring mechanism which intercepted the oral communications between the parties.” The state has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Mora, 618 A.2d 1275, 1280 (R.I.1993) (“When the state prosecutes a defendant, it carries the burden of proving every element necessary to the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, even if some of those elements may not be disputed.”). In this case, the trial justice “read[] the statute [under which defen dant was charged] and * * * attempted] to summarize the elements in his own words.” State v. Durfee, 666 A.2d 407, 409 (R.I.1995) (<HOLDING>). Merely by failing in the jury instructions to
holding that although the trial justice did not adopt the specific language that defendant requested be used in instructing the jury    the trial justice adequately and accurately instructed the jury as to that element of the charge holding that this court has long approved of the practice by which a trial justice reads the statute and    attempts to summarize the elements in his own words holding that where a collective bargaining agreements terms are clear but the management has engaged in contrary practice for a number of years the words of the agreement must be enforced recognizing that this courts construction of a statute becomes as much apart of the statute as the words of the statute itself and that change is a matter that addresses itself to the general assembly not this court holding that while a magistrate lacked the authority to enter an order granting a motion to correct error and thus that the order was defective for failing to contain the judges signature or another indication it was approved or adopted by the trial court the city waived any challenge to the validity of the order by failing to make a timely objection and observing that the indiana supreme court has long held that defects in the authority of a court officer as opposed to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself to enter a final order will be waived if not raised through a timely objection and more recently this court has applied the same principle to civil proceedings and clarified that any objection to the authority of an adjudicative officer must be raised at the first instance the irregularity occurs or at least within such time as the tribunal is able to remedy the defect