6 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1954–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boeche v. Stategreen2 sentences1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: “ ‘It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.’ ” See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A. 1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: “ ‘It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.’ ” See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Grigsbygreen1 sentence2025We have explained that the statutory presumptions regarding impairment are unavailable absent “scientific blood alcohol test results[.]” Souther, 2017 ME 184, ¶ 12 , 169 A.3d 927 ; see also State v. Grigsby, 666 A.2d 503, 505 (Me. 1995) (concluding that “evidence of an individual’s blood-alcohol content has procedural effect under [the predecessor statute to section 2432] only when it is obtained as a result of a scientific test administered contemporaneously with an arrest.” (quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence1997See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60, 65-66 (1995) (“The principle underlying the HGN test, i.e., that it is an accurate measure of the intoxication of a suspect, is a scientific principle.”); State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 178 (“The HGN test is a different type of test from balancing on one leg or walking a straight line because it rests almost entirely upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy rather than a basis of common knowledge). | 1 | 1 |
Schultz v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60, 65-66 (1995) (“The principle underlying the HGN test, i.e., that it is an accurate measure of the intoxication of a suspect, is a scientific principle.”); State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 178 (“The HGN test is a different type of test from balancing on one leg or walking a straight line because it rests almost entirely upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy rather than a basis of common knowledge). 1997See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60, 65-66 (1995) (“The principle underlying the HGN test, i.e., that it is an accurate measure of the intoxication of a suspect, is a scientific principle.”); State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 178 (“The HGN test is a different type of test from balancing on one leg or walking a straight line because it rests almost entirely upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy rather than a basis of common knowledge). | 1 | 1 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences1978Defendant argues that speech spectrograph voice identification rests on new developments in the application of scientific principles and therefore its admissibility as evidence should be governed by a special standard, as set forth in Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923): “Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable ■ stages is difficult to define. 1978Defendant argues that speech spectrograph voice identification rests on new developments in the application of scientific principles and therefore its admissibility as evidence should be governed by a special standard, as set forth in Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47 , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923): “Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable ■ stages is difficult to define. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knightgreen2 sentences1978In State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11, 133, 134 (1857), the Court upheld the admissibility of scientific testimony as to the properties and appearance of human blood and animal blood. 1978In State v. Knight, 43 Me. 11, 133, 134 (1857), the Court upheld the admissibility of scientific testimony as to the properties and appearance of human blood and animal blood. | 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. Samantha Souther
neutral
1 sentence2025We have explained that the statutory presumptions regarding impairment are unavailable absent “scientific blood alcohol test results[.]” Souther, 2017 ME 184, ¶ 12 , 169 A.3d 927 ; see also State v. Grigsby, 666 A.2d 503, 505 (Me. 1995) (concluding that “evidence of an individual’s blood-alcohol content has procedural effect under [the predecessor statute to section 2432] only when it is obtained as a result of a scientific test administered contemporaneously with an arrest.” (quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Souther
neutral
1 sentence2025We have explained that the statutory presumptions regarding impairment are unavailable absent “scientific blood alcohol test results[.]” Souther, 2017 ME 184, ¶ 12 , 169 A.3d 927 ; see also State v. Grigsby, 666 A.2d 503, 505 (Me. 1995) (concluding that “evidence of an individual’s blood-alcohol content has procedural effect under [the predecessor statute to section 2432] only when it is obtained as a result of a scientific test administered contemporaneously with an arrest.” (quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2025We have never held, however, that the same is true for purposes of proving a violation of section 2411.9 9 Our opinion in State v. Taylor, 1997 ME 81 , 694 A.2d 907 , is not to the contrary. 2025We have never held, however, that the same is true for purposes of proving a violation of section 2411.9 9 Our opinion in State v. Taylor, 1997 ME 81 , 694 A.2d 907 , is not to the contrary. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Richford
green
1 sentence1995“As its context indicates, evidence of an individual’s blood-alcohol content has procedural effect under subsection 5 only when it is obtained as a result of a scientific test administered contemporaneously with an arrest.” State v. Richford, 519 A.2d at 196 n. 1. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Casale
green
2 sentences1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: “ ‘It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.’ ” See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A. 1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: “ ‘It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.’ ” See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Mottram
green
2 sentences1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: “ ‘It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.’ ” See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A. 1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: “ ‘It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.’ ” See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Mower
green
2 sentences1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: “ ‘It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.’ ” See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A. 1978Holding polygraph evidence generally inadmissible, this Court in State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954) resorted to language contained in the Nebraska opinion in Boeche v. State, 151 Neb. 368 , 37 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1949), as follows: "`It is apparent from the foregoing authorities that the scientific principle involved in the use of such polygraph has not yet gone beyond the experimental and reached the demonstrable stage, and that it has not yet received general scientific acceptance.'" See also State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325 , 184 A.2d | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Inman
green
1 sentence1976In Inman we also said: “Experts in dactylography recognize that palm prints have the characteristic of uniqueness and that they contain reference points that enable accurate and conclusive comparisons just as do fingerprints.’’ (Emphasis added.) State v. Inman, supra, 301 A.2d at 353 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.