Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 101-B (2026)

Mental examination and observation of persons accused of crime

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(REPEALED)

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1987, c. 402, §A109 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 758, §11 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 621, §§1-5 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 704, §1 (AMD). RR 1995, c. 2, §§25,26 (COR). PL 1995, c. 560, §K82 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 560, §K83 (AFF). PL 1999, c. 373, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 503, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 510, §3 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 354, §3 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 471, §D15 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 634, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 689, §§B6,7 (REV). PL 2009, c. 268, §1 (RP).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1990–2011 · leading case: State v. Lewis, 584 A.2d 622 (Me. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Lewis, 584 A.2d 622 (Me. 1990). · cites it 3× “15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B (Supp.1990). 2 Pursuant to the statute, periodic review of a defendant’s competence to stand trial is de novo and is accomplished through an evi-dentiary hearing.”

State v. Gallant, 595 A.2d 413 (Me. 1991). · cites it 3× “Although neither the criminal rules nor 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B explicitly grant authority to sanction a defendant for failure to comply with a court-ordered examination, the court may exercise discretion to impose such a sanction in the same manner that it may sanction a defendant…”

Guardianship of K-M, 866 A.2d 106 (Me. 2005). “2004); criminal defendants are ordered to undergo examinations for mental conditions “for cause shown,” 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B(1) (2003); and putative parents and their children can be required to undergo blood testing, 19-A M.”

Leigh v. Superintendent, Augusta Mental Health Inst., 2003 ME 22 (Me. 2003). “) dismissed all criminal charges against him pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B(4)(A) (Pamph. 2002), because it was not substantially probable that he would be found competent in the future.”

State v. Barrett, 577 A.2d 1167 (Me. 1990). “Prior to trial, the court ordered a mental examination pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B (Pamph.1989). The resulting evaluation concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial.”

Pennings v. Pennings, 2002 ME 3 (Me. 2002). “) concluded that Stephen was not competent to stand trial and, pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B, ordered him committed to the Augusta Mental Health Institute (AMHI) for further periodic assessments.”

State v. Archer, 2011 ME 80 (Me. 2011). “Title 15 M.R.S. § 101-B(1)(2) (2008), which governed the mental examinations in this case, was repealed and replaced by 15 M.”

State v. Gray, 893 A.2d 611 (Me. 2006). “15 M.R.S. § 101-B (2005). Gray is a severely brain-damaged individual, who experienced several head traumas, including one in 1985 from a motor vehicle accident that left him in a coma for a month.”

Buchanan Ex Rel. Est. of Buchanan v. Maine, 417 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D. Me. 2006). “; (2) forensic services pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B to determine a criminal defendant’s competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, abnormal condition of mind or any other issue involving the mental or emotional condition of the defendant; (3) as permitted under law…”

State v. Mayberry, 687 A.2d 966 (Me. 1997). “An attorney was appointed to represent him and the court ordered a Stage One evaluation pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B (Supp.1996). Although an arraignment had actually taken place, the court directed that the record reflect that “there has been no arraignment.”

State v. Bowman, 681 A.2d 469 (Me. 1996). “See 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B(4) (Supp.1995) (if after hearing on motion of defendant, or on court’s own motion, the court finds defendant incompetent to stand trial, trial continued until defendant deemed by court competent to stand trial); Lewis, 584 A.”

United States v. Burhoe, 578 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D. Me. 2008). “Burhoe allegedly fired a rifle at a state trooper.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 101-B(1) — 4 cases

State v. Lewis, 584 A.2d 622 (Me. 1990). “15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B (Supp.1990). 2 Pursuant to the statute, periodic review of a defendant’s competence to stand trial is de novo and is accomplished through an evi-dentiary hearing.”

State v. Gallant, 595 A.2d 413 (Me. 1991). “Although neither the criminal rules nor 15 M.R.S.A. § 101-B explicitly grant authority to sanction a defendant for failure to comply with a court-ordered examination, the court may exercise discretion to impose such a sanction in the same manner that it may sanction a defendant…”

State v. Dedekian, 680 A.2d 441 (Me. 1996).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 101-B(1)(2) — 1 case

State v. Archer, 2011 ME 80 (Me. 2011). “Title 15 M.R.S. § 101-B(1)(2) (2008), which governed the mental examinations in this case, was repealed and replaced by 15 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 101-B(4) — 1 case

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 101-B(4)(A) — 2 cases

State v. Dedekian, 680 A.2d 441 (Me. 1996).

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.