Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 1106 (2026)

Disagreement in jury; instructions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

When a jury, not having agreed, returns into court stating the fact, the presiding justice may, in the exercise of judicial discretion, explain any questions of law if proposed or restate any particular testimony and send them out again for further consideration. [PL 1991, c. 60 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1991, c. 60 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: State of Maine v. Buddy Robinson, 2016 ME 24 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Maine v. Buddy Robinson, 2016 ME 24 (Me. 2016). “See 14 M.R.S. § 1106 (2015) (“When a jury, not having agreed, returns into court stating the fact, the presiding justice may, in the exercise of judicial discretion .”

State v. Engstrom, 453 A.2d 1170 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “In the matter of jury deliberations, the defendant finally argues that the court violated 14 M.R.S.A. § 1106 (1980) by sending *1174 the jury out for a third time.”

State v. Linscott, 416 A.2d 255 (Me. 1980). “The general view adopted by the ABA does not limit the number of times a disagreeing jury may be sent out for further deliberations “as it is believed the jury should not be permitted to avoid a reasonable period of deliberations merely by repeated indications that it is unable…”

State v. Mahaney, 437 A.2d 613 (Me. 1981). “14 M.R.S.A. § 1106 limits to three the number of times a jury may be returned to the jury room.”

State v. Hebert, 455 A.2d 925 (Me. 1983). “Title 14 M.R.S.A. § 1106 (1980) provides: Disagreement in jury; instructions When a jury, not having agreed, returns into court stating the fact, the justice may, in his discretion, explain any questions of law if proposed to him or restate any particular testimony and send them…”

State v. Varney, 560 A.2d 565 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “Varney claims the court erred by allowing the jury to deliberate in violation of 14 M.R.S.A. § 1106 (1980), 1 by denying his motion for a new trial and by permitting improper closing argument.”

People v. Leonardo, 687 P.2d 511 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). “808 (West 1967); Me.Rev.Stat. tit. 14, § 1106 (1965); Minn R.”

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.