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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 1314-A (2026)

Compelling evidence in criminal or juvenile proceedings; immunity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any criminal proceeding before a court or grand jury, or in any juvenile proceeding before a court, if a person refuses to answer questions or produce evidence of any kind on the ground that the person may be incriminated thereby, and if the attorney for the State, in writing and with the written approval of the Attorney General or, in the event the prosecution is being conducted by the office of the district attorney, the written approval of either the Attorney General or the district attorney for that district, requests the court to order that person to answer the questions or produce the evidence, and the court after notice to the witness and hearing orders, unless the court finds to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest, that person shall comply with the order. After complying, and if, but for this section, that person would have had the right to withhold the answers given or the evidence produced by that person, that person may not be prosecuted or subjected to penalty, forfeiture or adjudication for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which, in accordance with the order, that person gave answer or produced evidence. Failure to answer questions or produce evidence as ordered by the court following notice and hearing constitutes contempt of court. The person may nevertheless be prosecuted or subjected to penalty, forfeiture or adjudication for any perjury, false swearing or contempt committed in answering, or failing to answer, or in producing or failing to produce evidence, in accordance with the order.   [PL 2003, c. 162, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 526 (NEW). PL 1985, c. 386, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 162, §1 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1973–2012 · leading case: State v. Melvin, 390 A.2d 1024 (Me. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Melvin, 390 A.2d 1024 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “Defendant next contends that the State did not comply with the procedural requirements of 15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A in granting immunity from prosecution to Forest Hot-ham and, hence, the court erred in granting immunity to Hotham.”
Commonwealth v. Swinehart, 664 A.2d 957 (Pa. 1995). “2d 300 (Maine 1975), interpreting Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 15 § 1314-A; People v.”
State ex rel. Nothum v. Walsh, 380 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. 2012). “11 § 3506 (providing immunity “for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which” the person is compelled to testify); Me.Rev.Stat. tit. 15 § 1314-A (granting immunity “for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which” the compelled…”
State v. Brown, 321 A.2d 478 (Me. 1974). · cites it 2× “The Maine immunity statute is contained in 15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A, and grants to the witness transactional immunity.”
State v. Warren, 312 A.2d 535 (Me. 1973). · cites it 2× “However, during that proceeding Vickers, although granted full transactional immunity, (15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A) refused to testify and was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred ($500.”
State v. Robbins, 318 A.2d 51 (Me. 1974). · cites it 2× “To a considerable extent, at least, it has been alleviated by the enactment of 15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A which permits the State to grant immunity from prosecution to the witness whose otherwise incriminating testimony it seeks to obtain.”
State v. Williams, 395 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1978). “2d 300 (1975), and consistent with the requirements of 15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A, Woodbury could have been compelled to testify as to the crimes in question, see Annot.”
State v. McEachern, 431 A.2d 39 (Me. 1981). “15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A (1980) authorizes the court, upon appropriate motion and under very limited circumstances, to grant immunity from prosecution to a witness.”
State v. Snow, 383 A.2d 1385 (Me. 1978). “Farrington testified under a grant of immunity given pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A. 3 . The requested instruction, in pertinent part, read as follows: The circumstance which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this instance, in addition to proving all the…”
State v. Troiano, 421 A.2d 41 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “I Bucklin appeared as a witness for the prosecution after having been granted immunity pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A. Troiano’s attorney then moved orally that Lawrence Seekins likewise be compelled to testify and be granted immunity.”
State v. Vickers, 309 A.2d 324 (Me. 1973). “2d 212 ) was dispositive of his claim that the Maine immunity statute (15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A) is unconstitutional under the constitutions of the State of Maine and of the United States in that the scope of immunity granted under it is so limited as to violate the right against…”
State v. Winslow, 571 A.2d 1198 (Me. 1990). · cites it 3× “Defendant requested that the trial court grant Johnson immunity pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 1314-A (Supp.1989). However, the trial court ruled that it lacked the power to immunize any witness.”
Show all 15 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.