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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3310 (2026)

Adjudicatory hearing, findings, adjudication

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Evidence and fact-finding.  The Maine Rules of Evidence shall apply in the adjudicatory hearing. There shall be no jury.  
[PL 1979, c. 681, §22 (RPR).]
2.  Consideration of additional evidence.   
A. When it appears that the evidence presented at the hearing discloses facts not alleged in the petition, the court may proceed immediately to consider the additional or different matters raised by the evidence without amendment of the petition if all the parties consent.   [PL 1979, c. 681, §23 (AMD).]
B. In the event all of the parties do not consent as provided in paragraph A, the court, on the motion of any party or on its own motion, shall:  
(1) Order that the petition be amended to conform to the evidence;  
(2) Order that hearing be continued if the amendment results in substantial surprise or prejudice to the juvenile; or  
(3) Request a separate petition alleging the additional facts be filed.   [PL 1979, c. 681, §24 (AMD).]
[PL 1979, c. 681, §§23,24 (AMD).]
3.  Evidence of mental illness or incapacity. 
[PL 2011, c. 282, §2 (RP).]
4.  Standard of proof.  If the court finds that the elements of the juvenile crime as defined in section 3103, subsection 1, paragraph A, G or H are not supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or that the elements of a juvenile crime as defined in section 3103, subsection 1, paragraph B or C are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall order the petition dismissed and the juvenile discharged from any detention or restriction previously ordered. The juvenile's parents, guardian or other legal custodian must also be discharged from any restriction or other temporary order.  
[PL 2025, c. 431, §15 (AMD).]
5.  Adjudication.   
A. If the court finds that the allegations of the petition alleging a juvenile crime as defined in section 3103, subsection 1, paragraph A, G or H are supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or that the allegations of a petition alleging a juvenile crime as defined in section 3103, subsection 1, paragraph B or C are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall adjudge that the juvenile committed a juvenile crime and shall, in all such adjudications, issue an order of adjudication.   [PL 2025, c. 431, §16 (AMD).]
B. Following the issuance of the order of adjudication, a dispositional hearing must be commenced. Upon motion of any interested party or on the court's own motion, the time for the commencement of the dispositional hearing may be increased to 2 weeks or, upon cause shown, for a longer period. Once commenced, the dispositional hearing may be continued one or more times for any of the reasons specified in section 3312, subsection 3 or, upon cause shown, for any other reason.   [PL 1995, c. 253, §1 (RPR).]
[PL 2025, c. 431, §16 (AMD).]
6.  Adjudication not deemed conviction.  An adjudication of the commission of a juvenile crime shall not be deemed a conviction of a crime.  
[PL 1977, c. 520, §1 (NEW).]
7.  Default judgment on certain juvenile crimes.  If a juvenile fails to appear in response to a juvenile summons served pursuant to section 3304 for a juvenile crime described in section 3103, subsection 1, paragraph B or C, the judge may enter the juvenile's default, adjudicate that the juvenile has committed the juvenile crime alleged and impose a fine pursuant to section 3314, subsection 1, paragraph G. For good cause shown, the court may set aside the default and adjudication.  
[PL 2011, c. 336, §4 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 520, §1 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 664, §§31,32 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 373, §4 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 663, §117 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 681, §§22-25 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 253, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 471, §F2 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 87, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 93, §§10, 11 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 282, §2 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 336, §4 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 431, §§15, 16 (AMD).
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 12 cases, 1979–2017 · leading case: State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of an order of dismissal pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4). John W.’s appeal attacks the sufficiency of the juvenile petition, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and complains of the denial of a…”
State v. Gleason, 404 A.2d 573 (Me. 1979). “15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(6). Proceedings under the new Code retain as much informality as is permitted by the state and federal constitutions.”
United States v. Emerson, 432 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2006). · cites it 5× “1 Application Note 1; and, 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(6) Section 2K2.1(a)(3) provides a base offense level of twenty-two, “if .”
State v. Brockelbank, 33 A.3d 925 (Me. 2011). “” 15 M.R.S. § 3310(6) (2010). [¶ 18] Because the Juvenile Code closes all records pertaining to nonpublic juvenile adjudications, but does not do the same for all records pertaining to a juvenile adjudication for more serious offenses that are open to the public, courts should…”
State v. Michael Z., 427 A.2d 476 (Me. 1981). “The evidence was not sufficient to meet the state’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct found to be criminally negligent was a cause of the accident, and thus a cause of the death.”
State v. JOEY F., 438 A.2d 1273 (Me. 1982). “15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(1) (Supp.1980-81)). Furthermore, unfair surprise alone is not ordinarily a ground for exclusion of evidence.”
State v. S. G., 438 A.2d 256 (Me. 1981). “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of *258 an order of dismissal of the petition pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4) (1980). On June 26, 1980, Lewiston police responded at 9:50 p.”
State v. SG, 438 A.2d 256 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of *258 an order of dismissal of the petition pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4) (1980). On June 26, 1980, Lewiston police responded at 9:50 p.”
State v. Jacob L., 163 A.3d 827 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶ 6] Pursuant to M.”
State v. Jacob L., 163 A.3d 827 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶ 6] Pursuant to M.”
State of Maine v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112 (Me. 2017). “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶6] Pursuant to M.”
State v. S. G., 438 A.2d 256 (Me. 1981). “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of *258 an order of dismissal of the petition pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4) (1980). On June 26, 1980, Lewiston police responded at 9:50 p.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3310(1) — 1 case
State v. JOEY F., 438 A.2d 1273 (Me. 1982). “15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(1) (Supp.1980-81)). Furthermore, unfair surprise alone is not ordinarily a ground for exclusion of evidence.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3310(4) — 5 cases
State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980). “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of an order of dismissal pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4). John W.’s appeal attacks the sufficiency of the juvenile petition, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and complains of the denial of a…”
State v. Michael Z., 427 A.2d 476 (Me. 1981). “The evidence was not sufficient to meet the state’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct found to be criminally negligent was a cause of the accident, and thus a cause of the death.”
State v. S. G., 438 A.2d 256 (Me. 1981). “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of *258 an order of dismissal of the petition pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4) (1980). On June 26, 1980, Lewiston police responded at 9:50 p.”
State v. SG, 438 A.2d 256 (Me. 1981). “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of *258 an order of dismissal of the petition pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4) (1980). On June 26, 1980, Lewiston police responded at 9:50 p.”
State v. S. G., 438 A.2d 256 (Me. 1981). “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of *258 an order of dismissal of the petition pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4) (1980). On June 26, 1980, Lewiston police responded at 9:50 p.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3310(5) — 3 cases
State v. Jacob L., 163 A.3d 827 (Me. 2017). “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶ 6] Pursuant to M.”
State v. Jacob L., 163 A.3d 827 (Me. 2017). “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶ 6] Pursuant to M.”
State of Maine v. Jacob L., 2017 ME 112 (Me. 2017). “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶6] Pursuant to M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3310(5)(A) — 1 case
State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980). “We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for entry of an order of dismissal pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(4). John W.’s appeal attacks the sufficiency of the juvenile petition, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and complains of the denial of a…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 3310(6) — 5 cases
State v. Gleason, 404 A.2d 573 (Me. 1979). “15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(6). Proceedings under the new Code retain as much informality as is permitted by the state and federal constitutions.”
United States v. Emerson, 432 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2006). “1 Application Note 1; and, 15 M.R.S.A. § 3310(6) Section 2K2.1(a)(3) provides a base offense level of twenty-two, “if .”
State v. Brockelbank, 33 A.3d 925 (Me. 2011). “” 15 M.R.S. § 3310(6) (2010). [¶ 18] Because the Juvenile Code closes all records pertaining to nonpublic juvenile adjudications, but does not do the same for all records pertaining to a juvenile adjudication for more serious offenses that are open to the public, courts should…”
State v. Jacob L., 163 A.3d 827 (Me. 2017). “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶ 6] Pursuant to M.”
State v. Jacob L., 163 A.3d 827 (Me. 2017). “See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3310(5), 3314(1)(F) (2016). [¶ 6] Pursuant to M.”
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.