Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 1105 (2026)

Charge to jury

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

During a jury trial the presiding justice shall rule and charge the jury, orally or in writing, upon all matters of law arising in the case but shall not, during the trial, including the charge, express an opinion upon issues of fact arising in the case, and such an expression of opinion is sufficient cause for a new trial if either party aggrieved thereby and interested desires it, and the same shall be ordered accordingly by the law court on appeal in a civil or criminal case. [PL 1965, c. 356, §11 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1965, c. 356, §11 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: State v. Bachelder, 403 A.2d 754 (Me. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Bachelder, 403 A.2d 754 (Me. 1979). · cites it 8× “On appeal the defendant attacks the conduct of the trial Justice on two separate occasions during the trial as being in derogation of his constitutional right to an impartial trial (Constitution of the State of Maine, Article I, Section 6) and in violation of 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105…”

Marston v. Newavom, 629 A.2d 587 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105 (1980). In this instance, however, it is uncontroverted that plaintiff is an employee under the common law "right to control" test.”

State v. Collins, 297 A.2d 620 (Me. 1972). “Defendant had failed to object at the proper time to the portion of the charge now under consideration, as required by Rule 30 M.”

State v. Thompson, 370 A.2d 650 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “The defendant also suggests that the presiding Justice’s supplementary instruc *652 tion contained an impermissible comment on the evidence in violation of 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105. The defendant’s argument is premised on the fact that he was indicted for striking a police officer…”

State v. Curit, 462 A.2d 1188 (Me. 1983). · cites it 3× “Rather, he contends that, by requesting the only demonstrative exhibition at trial, the trial justice assumed the role of an advocate and created the impression upon the jury that he was partial.”

State v. Kessler, 453 A.2d 1174 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “The justice’s further comment in reference to the substance as cocaine cannot be said to have risen to the level of obvious error which deprived Kessler of a fair trial.”

State v. Spearin, 477 A.2d 1147 (Me. 1984). “(Emphasis added) On appeal defendant asserts that the italicized portion of this instruction violated 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105 (1980) 7 and article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution (1965), as an expression of opinion by the presiding justice on an issue of fact.”

State v. Discher, 597 A.2d 1336 (Me. 1991). “Characterizing the court’s comment as unsolicited tactical advice that “tainted the trial” and “undermined the guarantee of judicial impartiality,” defendant calls for a reversal of the judgment. The Superior Court is authorized to rule upon all matters of law arising in the…”

State v. Tullo, 366 A.2d 843 (Me. 1976). “14 M.R.S.A. § 1105. “During a jury trial the presiding justice shall rule and charge the jury, orally or in writing, upon all matters of law arising in the case but shall not, during ,the trial, including the charge, express an opinion upon issues of fact arising in the case,…”

State v. Kim, 2001 ME 99 (Me. 2001). “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105 (1980); State v. Edwards, 458 A.”

Saucier v. Allstate Ins., 1999 ME 197 (Me. 1999). “[¶ 26] The trial court found as a matter of law, following the jury’s determination of liability and damages, that Allstate was required by its contract to deduct the actual amount of money paid by Pelletier’s insurance from Saucier’s $50,000 coverage. To simply tell the jury…”

State v. Roman, 622 A.2d 96 (Me. 1993). “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 1105 (1980) provides, in pertinent part, that "the presiding justice .”

Show all 35 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.