Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1887–2024 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fourniergreen1 sentence2024Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ¶ 12 , 770 A.2d 630 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Fournier, 554 A.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Me. 1989); State v. Parsons, 2005 ME 69, ¶ 13 , 874 A.2d 875 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Piercegreen1 sentence2022See id. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richardsongreen1 sentence2014See id. ¶ 23; State v. Boucher, 1998 ME 209, ¶ 9 , 718 A.2d 1092 ; see also United States v. Richardson, 515 F.3d 74, 81 (1st Cir.2008) (“Garden variety prejudice ... will not, in and of itself, warrant severance. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Maine v. Havier Olmo
green
2 sentences2024“Nonetheless, joinder is the rule rather than the exception; the party moving for severance bears the significant burden of showing that joinder is so prejudicial that it outweighs the benefits associated with joinder . . . .” Olmo, 2014 ME 138, ¶ 12 , 106 A.3d 396 . [¶16] In considering a defendant’s motion for relief from joinder, the trial court has “wide discretion” in balancing the policy favoring joinder of offenses against the potential prejudice to the defendant. 2024“Nonetheless, joinder is the rule rather than the exception; the party moving for severance bears the significant burden of showing that joinder is so prejudicial that it outweighs the benefits associated with joinder . . . .” Olmo, 2014 ME 138, ¶ 12 , 106 A.3d 396 . [¶16] In considering a defendant’s motion for relief from joinder, the trial court has “wide discretion” in balancing the policy favoring joinder of offenses against the potential prejudice to the defendant. | 2 | 2016–2024 |
State v. Boucher
green
2 sentences2016“The decision on whether to sever a trial of one defendant from another lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Boucher, 1998 ME 209, ¶ 9 , 718 A.2d 1092 . “[J]oinder is the rule rather than the exception; the party moving for severance bears the significant burden of showing that joinder is so prejudicial that it outweighs the benefits associated, with joinder — namely, judicial economy and swift resolution of the charges.” State v. Olmo, 2014 ME 138, ¶ 12 , 106 A.3d 396 . 2016“The decision on whether to sever a trial of one defendant from another lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Boucher, 1998 ME 209, ¶ 9 , 718 A.2d 1092 . “[J]oinder is the rule rather than the exception; the party moving for severance bears the significant burden of showing that joinder is so prejudicial that it outweighs the benefits associated, with joinder — namely, judicial economy and swift resolution of the charges.” State v. Olmo, 2014 ME 138, ¶ 12 , 106 A.3d 396 . | 2 | 2014–2016 |
State v. Pierce
green
2 sentences2024Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ¶ 12 , 770 A.2d 630 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Fournier, 554 A.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Me. 1989); State v. Parsons, 2005 ME 69, ¶ 13 , 874 A.2d 875 . 2024Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ¶ 12 , 770 A.2d 630 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Fournier, 554 A.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Me. 1989); State v. Parsons, 2005 ME 69, ¶ 13 , 874 A.2d 875 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Parsons
green
2 sentences2024Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ¶ 12 , 770 A.2d 630 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Fournier, 554 A.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Me. 1989); State v. Parsons, 2005 ME 69, ¶ 13 , 874 A.2d 875 . 2024Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ¶ 12 , 770 A.2d 630 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Fournier, 554 A.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Me. 1989); State v. Parsons, 2005 ME 69, ¶ 13 , 874 A.2d 875 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Lemay
green
2 sentences2016“We review the court’s decision to. deny a motion for severance for an abuse of discretion and will not vacate a decision to deny a. motion unless the case is one in which the potential for confusion or prejudice is obviously serious.” Id. ¶ 10 (altera-tion omitted) (quoting State v. Lemay, 2012 ME 86, ¶ 22 , 46 A.3d 1113 ). [¶ 37] The court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daluz’s motion to sever his trial from Sexton’s. 2016“We review the court’s decision to. deny a motion for severance for an abuse of discretion and will not vacate a decision to deny a. motion unless the case is one in which the potential for confusion or prejudice is obviously serious.” Id. ¶ 10 (altera-tion omitted) (quoting State v. Lemay, 2012 ME 86, ¶ 22 , 46 A.3d 1113 ). [¶ 37] The court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daluz’s motion to sever his trial from Sexton’s. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Attorney General v. Simonds
neutral
1 sentence1887Attorney General v. Simonds, 111 Mass. 256 . | 1 | 1887–1887 |
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.