Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 1001 (2026)

Penalty

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 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(REPEALED)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, §5 (RP).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1966–2007 · leading case: State v. McFarland, 369 A.2d 227 (Me. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McFarland, 369 A.2d 227 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “§ 201), crime against nature (17 M.R.S.A. § 1001), and rape (17 M.R.S.A.”
State v. White, 285 A.2d 832 (Me. 1972). “” 17 M.R.S.A. § 1001. Force is not an essential element of the crime of sodomy.”
State v. Lapointe, 357 A.2d 882 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “§ 2051) 2 and sodomy (17 M.R.S.A. § 1001). 3 The Court acquitted defendant of kidnapping but found him guilty of abduction and sodomy.”
State v. Fischer, 238 A.2d 210 (Me. 1968). · cites it 2× “§ 1951 (indecent liberties) and 17 M.R.S.A. § 1001 (sodomy). We find that the testimony adequately supports the jury's determinations that the guilt of the defendant in each case had been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Carmichael, 395 A.2d 826 (Me. 1978). “17 M.R.S.A. § 1001, since repealed by P.L.”
State v. Jason, 392 A.2d 1086 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “Appellant was indicted on February 2, 1977 on charges of sodomy, 17 M.R.S.A. § 1001 1 and taking indecent liberties, 17 M.”
State v. White, 217 A.2d 212 (Me. 1966). “134, § 3 (now 17 M.R.S.A. § 1001). 1 In Jaquith v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass.”
State v. Pratt, 309 A.2d 864 (Me. 1973). “On January 13, 1971 the Grand Jury for the County of Cumberland returned an indictment against the Defendant for Sodomy (17 M.R.S.A. § 1001). The complainant was a nine-year-old boy.”
State v. Moore, 377 A.2d 1365 (Me. 1977). “17 M.R.S.A. § 1001. 3 . 17 M.R.S.A. § 1951.”
State v. Loder, 381 A.2d 290 (Me. 1978). “The indictments charged, respectively, violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1001 (sodomy), of 17 M.R.S.”
Murphy v. Foster, 518 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D. Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “They seek my intervention because they are unhappy with the decisions that Judge Foster (and state officials and a state judge preceding her) made in connection with state proceedings (they refer to Biddeford District docket number 07-SW-35) under Maine’s Animal Welfare Act, 17…”
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.