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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 1501 (2026)

Forgery defined

✓ current as of May 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(REPEALED)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, §7 (RP).
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 6 cases, 1969–1977 · leading case: State v. King, 371 A.2d 640 (Me. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. King, 371 A.2d 640 (Me. 1977). “§ 1579(7) which makes it a misdemeanor to falsify a ballot); or 3) the Legislature intended to proscribe only the forging of applications or actual ballots (in which case the forging of envelopes would perhaps be indictable under the general forgery statute, 17 M.R.S.A. § 1501).…”
State v. Rowe, 314 A.2d 407 (Me. 1974). “In a trial in the Superior Court (Cumberland County), defendant was found *410 guilty by jury verdict of the offense of uttering a forged instrument in violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1501. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the Maine State Prison for a period of not less…”
State v. Morton, 290 A.2d 371 (Me. 1972). “Defendant, in a trial by jury (in the Superior Court, Kennebec County), was found guilty of the crime of uttering and publishing as true, and with intent to defraud, an endorsement of a bank check which defendant knew to be a false, forged and counterfeit endorsement (17…”
Rastrom v. Robbins, 319 F. Supp. 1090 (D. Me. 1970). · cites it 2× “Rastrom, was convicted by a jury at the February 1969 Term of the Cumberland County, Maine Superior Court of the crime of uttering a forged check, in violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 1501. He was sentenced to one to three years imprisonment in the Maine State Prison, and is presently…”
Northup v. State, 272 A.2d 747 (Me. 1971). “See, 17 M.R.S.A. § 1501. Stewart’s criminal record, considered by the sentencing judge at the time of the current sentence, to all concerned, was a true record, including that of his 1954 voidable sentence which was then in full force and effect.”
Stewart v. State, 259 A.2d 664 (Me. 1969). “See, 17 M.R.S.A. § 1501. Stewart’s criminal record, considered by the sentencing judge at the time of the current sentence, to all concerned, was a true record, including that of his 1954 voidable sentence which was then in full force and effect.”
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.