8 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1917–2015 0 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. Jamesgreen1 sentence1982State v. James, Me., 310 A.2d 267, 270 (1973) and State v. Chick, Me., 263 A.2d 71, 76 (1972), in which the respective indictments for criminal conspiracy failed to allege facts that would show the criminality of the conspiracy, are therefore distinguishable here. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brycegreen1 sentence1973Following a conference with the appellant, his counsel made the statement: “He has no objection to proceeding as it is, your Honor.” It is clear that the erroneous statutory citation “did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.” See State v. Bryce, 243 A.2d 726, 732 (Me.1968). | 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 v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2015P. 7(c) ("Error in the citation of a statute or its omission shall not be grounds for the ... reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to the defendant’s prejudice."); State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 140 , ¶ 1 n. 1, 10 A.3d 697 . 2 . 2015P. 7(c) ("Error in the citation of a statute or its omission shall not be grounds for the ... reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to the defendant’s prejudice."); State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 140 , ¶ 1 n. 1, 10 A.3d 697 . 2 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Earley
green
1 sentence2010P. 7(c); State v. Earley, 454 A.2d 341 , 342 n. 2 (Me. 1983). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Chick
green
1 sentence1982State v. James, Me., 310 A.2d 267, 270 (1973) and State v. Chick, Me., 263 A.2d 71, 76 (1972), in which the respective indictments for criminal conspiracy failed to allege facts that would show the criminality of the conspiracy, are therefore distinguishable here. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Dow v. State
green
1 sentence1972While the indictment would be a completely acceptable charge of violation of section 2103 if the surplus language was stricken (Dow v. State, Me., 275 A.2d 815 (1971); M.R.Crim.P., Form 11; Whitehouse and Hill, Directions and Forms for Civil Procedure, page 74.) the Defendant insists that the inclusion of the additional language combined with the erroneous citation, misled him to his prejudice. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Bennett v. State
green
2 sentences1970By the terms of 14 M.R.S.A. § 5502, alleged trial errors are not reviewable on post-conviction habeas corpus, Bennett v. State, 161 Me. 489 , 214 A.2d 667 ; Lemieux v. State, Me., 240 A.2d 206 ; Papolas v. State, Me., 235 A.2d 533 . 1970By the terms of 14 M.R.S.A. § 5502, alleged trial errors are not reviewable on post-conviction habeas corpus, Bennett v. State, 161 Me. 489 , 214 A.2d 667 ; Lemieux v. State, Me., 240 A.2d 206 ; Papolas v. State, Me., 235 A.2d 533 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Papolas v. State
green
1 sentence1970By the terms of 14 M.R.S.A. § 5502, alleged trial errors are not reviewable on post-conviction habeas corpus, Bennett v. State, 161 Me. 489 , 214 A.2d 667 ; Lemieux v. State, Me., 240 A.2d 206 ; Papolas v. State, Me., 235 A.2d 533 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Lemieux v. State
neutral
1 sentence1970By the terms of 14 M.R.S.A. § 5502, alleged trial errors are not reviewable on post-conviction habeas corpus, Bennett v. State, 161 Me. 489 , 214 A.2d 667 ; Lemieux v. State, Me., 240 A.2d 206 ; Papolas v. State, Me., 235 A.2d 533 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Lashus
green
1 sentence1927Lashus, 79 Me. 541 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Kincade v. State
green
1 sentence1917(Ind.) 457; “larger,” beer for “lager” beer, State v. Colly, 69 Mo. App., 444 ; “assalt” or “assatt” for “assault,” State v. Crane, 4 Wis., 417 , where the court characterizes the objection as a “gossamer obstacle” which should not be permitted to stay the due administration of justice; “Frunk” for “drunk,” Kincaide v. State, 14 Ga. App., 544 , 81 So., 910 . | 1 | 1917–1917 |
State v. Colly
neutral
1 sentence1917(Ind.) 457; “larger,” beer for “lager” beer, State v. Colly, 69 Mo. App., 444 ; “assalt” or “assatt” for “assault,” State v. Crane, 4 Wis., 417 , where the court characterizes the objection as a “gossamer obstacle” which should not be permitted to stay the due administration of justice; “Frunk” for “drunk,” Kincaide v. State, 14 Ga. App., 544 , 81 So., 910 . | 1 | 1917–1917 |
State v. Lockwood
neutral
1 sentence1917It certainly could not have misled the defendant as to what he was called on to answer and the conviction would bar a subsequent prosecution.” Again, “eigh” for “eight,” State v. Coleman, 8 S. C., 237; “Janury” for “January” in Hutto v. State, 7 Tex. App., 44, where the language of the opinion is: “We think ‘Janury’ is idem sonans with ‘January,’ and, if not so, that it is intelligible and no one could well have been misled by it.” Other instances are “stael” for “steal,” State v. Lockwood, 58 Vt., 378 ; “stal” for “steal,” Willis v. State, 4 Blackf. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.