Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 15
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 102 (2026)

No responsibility for criminal act produced by mental disease or defect

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1975, c. 499, §2 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1965–2017 · leading case: State v. Lewisohn, 379 A.2d 1192 (Me. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lewisohn, 379 A.2d 1192 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “At the time of the defendant's trial, the rule in Maine regarding the insanity defense was dictated by 15 M.R.S.A. § 102, which provided that "[a]n accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”
In re Beauchene, 951 A.2d 81 (Me. 2008). · cites it 2× “The jury in that trial found that pursuant to the statute in place at the time, 15 M.R.S.A. § 102 (1964), 1 Beauchene was not criminally responsible due to mental disease or defect.”
State v. Hathaway, 211 A.2d 558 (Me. 1965). · cites it 3× “311, § 3) (15 M.R.S.A. § 102) and reads as follows: "An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”
State v. Burnham, 406 A.2d 889 (Me. 1979). “*892 Although the drafters did not explicitly use the term “affirmative defense” in § 58, § 58(3) (quoted above) makes it clear that it was intended that the “insanity defense” continue to be an affirmative defense.”
Beauchene v. State, 167 A.3d 569 (Me. 2017). “” At the hearing before the trial court from which Beauehene now appeals, several expert witnesses testified about the differing psychiatric terminology used in 1970.”
State v. Buzynski, 330 A.2d 422 (Me. 1974). “…. “An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” 15 M.R.S.A. § 102.”
State v. White, 456 P.2d 797 (Idaho 1969). “15 M.R.S.A. § 102 (1961). 21 . See Comment, Insanity as a Defense in Idaho, 3 Idaho L.”
State v. Wallace, 333 A.2d 72 (Me. 1975). “2d 862 (1954), and subsequently adopted by the Maine Legislature as 15 M.R.S.A. § 102. A closer look now at Washington is helpful in resolving the question before us and explaining our language quoted above in Durgin where we held a psychiatrist could describe the “mental and…”
State v. Armstrong, 344 A.2d 42 (Me. 1975). ““An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. The terms ‘mental disease’ or ‘mental defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal conduct or excessive use of drugs or alcohol.”
State v. Gatcomb, 389 A.2d 22 (Me. 1978). “” Whether the appellant had a mental disease or mental defect sufficient to excuse his otherwise criminal conduct pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 102, 2 or whether he suffered from either mental disease or defect and thus “lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the…”
State v. Durgin, 311 A.2d 266 (Me. 1973). “3, which is now 15 M.R.S.A. § 102, declared as the law of Maine: “An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”
State v. Ruybal, 408 A.2d 1284 (Me. 1979). “” At trial, in an effort to prove that “his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect,” 15 M.R.S.A. § 102 (1965), 6 defendant offered the testimony of three experts — one psychologist and two psychiatrists — to the effect that he had been suffering from an…”
Show all 19 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.