mens rea requirement (Maine) · Go Syfert
← Maine issues

mens rea requirement in Maine

5 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2026 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Rosemond v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 2014 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018See Rosemond v. United States , 572 U.S. 65 , 134 S.Ct. 1240 , 1243-45, 188 L.Ed.2d 248 (2014).

2018See Rosemond v. United States , 572 U.S. 65 , 134 S.Ct. 1240 , 1243-45, 188 L.Ed.2d 248 (2014).

11
State v. Smithgreen
me · 1984 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1) (Supp.2004); see also State v. Smith, 472 A.2d 948, 951 (Me.1984).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State of Maine v. Ahmed M. Asaad green
me · 2020
2 sentences

2025A to L.D. 1903, No. H-892 (130th Legis. 2022) (changing the mens rea requirement from knowingly to criminal negligence). [¶12] Although we communicated in Asaad the need for the Legislature to specify the mens rea requirement for offenses within section 253, see 2020 ME 11, ¶ 15 , 224 A.3d 596 (“In this complicated and nuanced area of human behavior in which norms—and nationally, legal standards—are varied and rapidly changing, courts must look to the Legislature for broad-based policy judgments.”), the Legislature amended only subsection 253(2)(M), leaving the courts and parties uncertain of

2025A to L.D. 1903, No. H-892 (130th Legis. 2022) (changing the mens rea requirement from knowingly to criminal negligence). [¶12] Although we communicated in Asaad the need for the Legislature to specify the mens rea requirement for offenses within section 253, see 2020 ME 11, ¶ 15 , 224 A.3d 596 (“In this complicated and nuanced area of human behavior in which norms—and nationally, legal standards—are varied and rapidly changing, courts must look to the Legislature for broad-based policy judgments.”), the Legislature amended only subsection 253(2)(M), leaving the courts and parties uncertain of

22025–2026
State of Maine v. Kulmiye Idris green
me · 2025
2 sentences

2026Relying on State v. Asaad, 2020 ME 11 , 224 A.3d 596 , and State v. Idris, 2025 ME 17 , 331 A.3d 419 , the trial court concluded that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pelletier was criminally negligent as to whether the victim acquiesced.

2026Relying on State v. Asaad, 2020 ME 11 , 224 A.3d 596 , and State v. Idris, 2025 ME 17 , 331 A.3d 419 , the trial court concluded that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pelletier was criminally negligent as to whether the victim acquiesced.

12026–2026
State v. Proia green
me · 2017
1 sentence

2026While Marin is correct that gross sexual assault does not require proof of intent, 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C), see State v. Proia, 2017 ME 169, ¶ 11 n.3, 168 A.3d 798, the other charges of unlawful sexual contact and unlawful sexual touching do require proof of intent. 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(E-1); 17-A M.R.S. § 260(1)(C).

12026–2026
State of Maine v. Thomas A. Proia green
me · 2017
1 sentence

2026While Marin is correct that gross sexual assault does not require proof of intent, 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C), see State v. Proia, 2017 ME 169, ¶ 11 n.3, 168 A.3d 798, the other charges of unlawful sexual contact and unlawful sexual touching do require proof of intent. 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(E-1); 17-A M.R.S. § 260(1)(C).

12026–2026

Where else courts name it

CA 133 (1961–2026) TX 123 (1976–2026) PA 122 (1977–2026) IN 59 (1982–2026) NM 53 (1975–2026) MI 50 (1966–2026) WA 41 (1960–2026) UT 39 (1978–2026) FL 38 (1966–2023) OH 37 (1966–2026) IL 36 (1991–2025) MN 34 (1982–2025) CO 34 (1981–2026) MD 28 (1977–2025) VA 26 (1991–2025) DC 24 (1975–2026) NY 23 (1969–2021) MS 21 (2003–2024) TN 18 (1997–2026) SD 14 (2003–2023) MA 13 (1966–2011) CT 12 (1984–2022) NH 12 (1954–2025) AK 12 (1979–2026) IA 11 (1967–2025) AZ 11 (1979–2025) LA 11 (1961–2016) NC 11 (1998–2026) VT 10 (1990–2020) HI 8 (1998–2025) MO 8 (1995–2023) NJ 7 (1999–2020) KS 7 (1995–2024) ID 7 (1990–2022) GA 7 (1988–2023) OR 7 (1979–2013) OK 6 (1989–2024) RI 6 (1992–2006) VI 5 (2001–2014) ME 5 (2005–2026) AL 4 (1983–2025) WI 4 (1967–2002) SC 3 (2010–2019) NE 3 (1989–2016) DE 3 (2017–2025) ND 3 (2021–2025) GU 3 (2021–2025) WY 3 (1983–2023) NV 2 (2017–2017) AR 2 (2002–2007) MT 2 (2007–2010)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check