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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 951 (2026)

Definition; penalty

✓ 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(REPEALED)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, §5 (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 10 cases, 1970–1978 · leading case: State v. Williams, 395 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Williams, 395 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “Upon a jury trial of four days in Superior Court in Oxford County, the Defendant, Philip Williams, was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, 17 M.R.S.A. § 951, and of being an accessory before the fact to assault with intent to murder, 17 M.”
State v. Chick, 263 A.2d 71 (Me. 1970). · cites it 2× “*74 The sole issue before us is whether the indictment charging the accused with the offense of conspiracy under 17 M.R.S.A. § 951, was such a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the conspiracy charged as • to meet the requirements…”
State v. Heald, 367 A.2d 1372 (Me. 1977). “The defendants were indicted, tried before a jury and convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 951, and have appealed. Both defendants premise their appeals on the ground that the presiding Justice committed error (1) by improperly instructing the…”
State v. Warren, 312 A.2d 535 (Me. 1973). “The appellants, Rodney Warren and Alton Phinney, were secretly 1 indicted by a Penobscot County Grand Jury for conspiracy (17 M.R.S.A. § 951). Although separately indicted the cases were ordered to be tried together because the appellants could have been jointly indicted.”
State v. Goldman, 281 A.2d 8 (Me. 1971). “Conspiracy is proscribed by 17 M.R.S.A. § 951, the essential parts thereof relating to the issues here are as follows: “If 2 or more persons conspire and agree together, with the fraudulent or malicious intent wrongfully and wickedly * * * to commit a crime punishable by…”
State v. Clough, 391 A.2d 361 (Me. 1978). “Like Voisine, *362 appellants were indicted for conspiracy to commit the crime of cheating by false pretenses and for cheating by false pretenses under former 17 M.R.S.A. §§ 951 and 1601. Appellants were four of the six employees who were most often overpaid.”
State v. James, 310 A.2d 267 (Me. 1973). · cites it 2× “The defendants were indicted for an alleged violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 951, 1 the indictment charging: “That on or about the 21st day of April, 1972, and continuously thereafter, *268 in the City of Portland, County of Cumberland and State of Maine, the above named defendants…”
Shaw v. Robbins, 338 F. Supp. 756 (D. Me. 1972). “§ 2101) in violation of 17 M.R.S.A. § 951. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed all three convictions.”
State v. Voisine, 391 A.2d 1196 (Me. 1978). “Appellant Voisine was indicted for conspiracy to commit the crime of cheating by false pretenses in violation of the former 17 M.R.S.A. § 951 (1964) and for cheating by false pretenses in violation of the former 17 M.”
State v. Rausch, 365 A.2d 1029 (Me. 1976). “The defendant was indicted, tried before a jury and convicted of conspiracy to sell amphetamines in violation of 17 M.R.S.A. §951 and has appealed. We deny the appeal.”
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.