7 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2026 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 of Maine v. Jahneiro Plummergreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Plummer I, 2020 ME 106, ¶¶ 17-23 , 238 A.3d 241 (rejecting a similar challenge to an accomplice-liability instruction). 2026See, e.g., Plummer I, 2020 ME 106, ¶¶ 17-23 , 238 A.3d 241 (rejecting a similar challenge to an accomplice-liability instruction). | 1 | 1 |
State of Maine v. Pedro J. Rosariogreen2 sentences2026They therefore “informed the jury correctly 15 and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law” and created no “potential for juror misunderstanding.” Rosario, 2022 ME 46, ¶ 29 , 280 A.3d 199 (quotation marks omitted); accord Plummer I, 2020 ME 106, ¶ 15 , 238 A.3d 241 . 2026They therefore “informed the jury correctly 15 and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law” and created no “potential for juror misunderstanding.” Rosario, 2022 ME 46, ¶ 29 , 280 A.3d 199 (quotation marks omitted); accord Plummer I, 2020 ME 106, ¶ 15 , 238 A.3d 241 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Caouettegreen2 sentences2023Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶ 37 , 298 A.3d 815 ; State v. Caouette, 462 A.2d 1171, 1175 (Me. 1983) (“The accomplice liability instruction should not be given as a matter of course in every criminal case; it is proper only if the evidence generates an accomplice issue.”). 13 [¶22] Under accomplice liability principles, a person is guilty of a crime “committed by the conduct of another person” if “[t]he person is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.” 17-A M.R.S. § 57(1), (2)(C) (2023). 2023Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶ 37 , 298 A.3d 815 ; State v. Caouette, 462 A.2d 1171, 1175 (Me. 1983) (“The accomplice liability instruction should not be given as a matter of course in every criminal case; it is proper only if the evidence generates an accomplice issue.”). 13 [¶22] Under accomplice liability principles, a person is guilty of a crime “committed by the conduct of another person” if “[t]he person is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.” 17-A M.R.S. § 57(1), (2)(C) (2023). | 1 | 1 |
State of Maine v. Abdirahmon A. Abdullahigreen2 sentences2023Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶ 37 , 298 A.3d 815 ; State v. Caouette, 462 A.2d 1171, 1175 (Me. 1983) (“The accomplice liability instruction should not be given as a matter of course in every criminal case; it is proper only if the evidence generates an accomplice issue.”). 13 [¶22] Under accomplice liability principles, a person is guilty of a crime “committed by the conduct of another person” if “[t]he person is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.” 17-A M.R.S. § 57(1), (2)(C) (2023). 2023Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶ 37 , 298 A.3d 815 ; State v. Caouette, 462 A.2d 1171, 1175 (Me. 1983) (“The accomplice liability instruction should not be given as a matter of course in every criminal case; it is proper only if the evidence generates an accomplice issue.”). 13 [¶22] Under accomplice liability principles, a person is guilty of a crime “committed by the conduct of another person” if “[t]he person is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the crime.” 17-A M.R.S. § 57(1), (2)(C) (2023). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2003See State v. Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 5 , 695 A.2d 115, 117 (stating that an error is harmless if it is highly probable the error did not affect the judgment). 2003See State v. Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 5 , 695 A.2d 115, 117 (stating that an error is harmless if it is highly probable the error did not affect the judgment). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greenwaldgreen1 sentence1992See State v. Greenwald, 454 A.2d 827, 830 (Me.1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tibbettsgreen1 sentence1983See State v. Tibbetts, 379 A.2d 735, 737 (Me.1977). | 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. Eric Anderson
green
1 sentence2023“The State must prove something more than the [accomplice’s] mere presence, but need not prove an overt act of physical assistance.” State v. Anderson, 2016 ME 183, ¶ 20 , 152 A.2d 623 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State of Maine v. Stephen J. Tucker Sr.
green
2 sentences2023The State contends that there was sufficient evidence to generate an instruction because there was evidence that (1) two guns were used in the murders and (2) Nightingale stated that other people committed the murders. [¶21] When a defendant raises on appeal a preserved challenge to jury instructions, “[w]e review [the] jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Tucker, 2015 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 117 A.3d 595 (quotation marks omitted); see State v. Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶ 2023The State contends that there was sufficient evidence to generate an instruction because there was evidence that (1) two guns were used in the murders and (2) Nightingale stated that other people committed the murders. [¶21] When a defendant raises on appeal a preserved challenge to jury instructions, “[w]e review [the] jury instructions as a whole for prejudicial error, and to ensure that they informed the jury correctly and fairly in all necessary respects of the governing law.” State v. Tucker, 2015 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 117 A.3d 595 (quotation marks omitted); see State v. Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41, ¶ | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences2015The accomplice liability instruction was generated by the defense testimony suggesting that Robinson’s cousin may have been the individual who entered the restaurant, combined with the police testimony that, at around the time of the burglary, Robinson was in the vicinity of the building, and the stolen goods and Robinson’s cell phone were found near Robinson. 'See State v. Cook, 2010 ME 85, ¶ 12 , 2 A.3d 333 (stating that once presence at the scene of a crime is proved, accomplice liability may attach upon proof of any conduct, however slight, promoting or facilitating the commission of the c 2015The accomplice liability instruction was generated by the defense testimony suggesting that Robinson’s cousin may have been the individual who entered the restaurant, combined with the police testimony that, at around the time of the burglary, Robinson was in the vicinity of the building, and the stolen goods and Robinson’s cell phone were found near Robinson. 'See State v. Cook, 2010 ME 85, ¶ 12 , 2 A.3d 333 (stating that once presence at the scene of a crime is proved, accomplice liability may attach upon proof of any conduct, however slight, promoting or facilitating the commission of the c | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2006Because of the reasonable possibility that Perry would have been acquitted if the instruction correctly defined accomplice liability, see Walker, 512 A.2d at 356 , the erroneous instruction was both obvious and prejudicial. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Powell
green
1 sentence2006Powell, 452 A.2d at 978 . [¶ 16] We consider first Perry’s contention that the evidence did not generate the accomplice liability instruction. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Pheng
green
2 sentences2006When the evidence puts the defendant at the scene of a crime, “accomplice liability may attach upon the State’s proof of any conduct promoting or facilitating, however slightly, the commission of the crime.” State v. Pheng, 2002 ME 40, ¶ 9 , 791 A.2d 925, 927 . 2006When the evidence puts the defendant at the scene of a crime, “accomplice liability may attach upon the State’s proof of any conduct promoting or facilitating, however slightly, the commission of the crime.” State v. Pheng, 2002 ME 40, ¶ 9 , 791 A.2d 925, 927 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.