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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 2114 (2026)

Defendant may make election of trial

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In all Class D and E criminal proceedings, the defendant may waive the defendant's right to jury trial and elect to be tried in the District Court, as provided by rule of the Supreme Judicial Court.   [PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §16 (AMD); PL 1999, c. 731, Pt. ZZZ, §42 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 356, §62 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 520 (RPR). PL 1975, c. 139 (RPR). PL 1979, c. 663, §109 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 487, §1 (RPR). PL 1999, c. 731, §ZZZ16 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 731, §ZZZ42 (AFF).
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 10 cases, 1974–1985 · leading case: State v. Sklar, 317 A.2d 160 (Me. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sklar, 317 A.2d 160 (Me. 1974). · cites it 7× “1 On October 10, 1973, defendant, purporting to act under 15 M.R.S.A. § 2114 (as amended effective October 3, 1973; P.”
State v. Carter, 444 A.2d 37 (Me. 1982). “487, § 1 enacting a new 15 M.R.S.A. § 2114 (Supp.1981). See also D.”
State v. Rowell, 468 A.2d 1005 (Me. 1983). “15 M.R.S.A. § 2114 (Supp.1982-1983), enacted by P.”
State v. Currier, 409 A.2d 241 (Me. 1979). “15 M.R.S.A. § 2114; D.C. Crim.R. 40. After (3) a plea of not guilty is taken, and the defendant requests that the action be transferred to the Superior Court, (4) the judge in writing must order the transfer of the case.”
State v. Goodwin, 414 A.2d 894 (Me. 1980). “See 15 M.R.S.A. § 2114; M.D. C.Crim.R. 40. The prosecuting attorney should know the nature of the proceeding he has instituted and must be certain the court and the defendant are aware of the nature of that proceeding in order that they may use the appropriate procedure.”
State v. Mason, 420 A.2d 216 (Me. 1980). “15 M.R.S.A. § 2114; D.C.Crim.R. 40. Because in the case at bar there was no arraignment of the Defendant in District Court, 1 the purported transfer of the cases was ineffective, and the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to try him on the two complaints.”
State v. Goguen, 489 A.2d 533 (Me. 1985). “Since the enactment of the “Single Trial Law,” 15 M.R.S.A. § 2114 (Supp.1984-1985), effective January 1, 1982, an appeal of a criminal case from the District Court to the Superior Court provides the defendant, not with a trial de novo, but only with a review on questions of law.”
State v. Sylmor-Slosberg, 451 A.2d 302 (Me. 1982). “40 was completely rewritten in connection with the so-called Single Trial Law, 15 M.R.S.A. § 2114 (Supp. 1982), enacted by P.”
State v. Musk, 438 A.2d 472 (Me. 1981). “We have previously indicated that procedural regularity is necessary for a proper transfer of a case from District Court under 15 M.R.S.A § 2114 1 and D.C.Crim.R. 40. State v.”
State v. Clark, 420 A.2d 240 (Me. 1980). “On the same date, the case was transferred to the Superior Court, at Clark’s request, pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 2114 and M.D.C.Crim.R. 40. On March 18, 1980, Clark filed a motion in the Superior Court, seeking dismissal of the complaint on various grounds, including the bare…”
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.