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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 1258-A (2026)

Voir dire

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any rule of court or statute to the contrary notwithstanding, the court shall permit voir dire examination to be conducted by the parties or their attorneys under its direction.   [PL 1965, c. 482, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 482, §2 (NEW).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: State v. Bowman, 588 A.2d 728 (Me. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bowman, 588 A.2d 728 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “Voir Dire Defendant argues, for the first time on appeal, that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying defense counsel the right to conduct the voir dire of prospective jurors.”
State of Maine v. Dana A. Healey, 2024 ME 4, 307 A.3d 1082. · cites it 3× “Healey contends that the court exceeded its discretion by failing to “permit voir dire examination to be conducted by the parties or their attorneys,” 15 M.R.S. § 1258-A (2023), during jury selection and by denying Healey’s requests to cross-examine the victim about her recanted…”
State v. Bernier, 486 A.2d 147 (Me. 1985). · cites it 3× “On appeal, he contends that at his trial certain opening remarks by the prosecutor concerning inadmissible hearsay evidence deprived him of a fair trial; and that the presiding justice erred (a) in refusing to permit defense counsel to conduct the jury voir dire pursuant to 15…”
State v. Rancourt, 435 A.2d 1095 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “Relying on 15 M.R.S.A. § 1258-A and M.R.Crim.P. 24(a), the defendant contends that he has an absolute right to address questions to the prospective jurors either himself or through his attorney.”
State v. Littlefield, 374 A.2d 590 (Me. 1977). “See also: 15 M.R.S.A. § 1258-A; Classman, Maine Practice § 24.”
State v. Rolerson, 593 A.2d 220 (Me. 1991). “Rolerson asserts that the court’s conduct of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors violated defense counsel’s right to conduct voir dire pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 1258-A (1980). We have upheld the court’s conduct of the voir dire against a similar challenge in State v.”
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.