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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 101 (2026)

General rules for defenses and affirmative defenses; justification

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a "defense," or any exception, exclusion or authorization that is set out in the statute defining the crime by proof at trial, unless the existence of the defense, exception, exclusion or authorization is in issue as a result of evidence admitted at the trial that is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue, in which case the State must disprove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt. This subsection does not require a trial court to instruct on an issue that has been waived by the defendant. The subject of waiver is addressed by the Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure.  
[PL 2015, c. 431, §35 (AMD).]
2.  Where the statute explicitly designates a matter as an "affirmative defense," the matter so designated must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.  
[PL 1981, c. 324, §24 (RPR).]
3.  Conduct that is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any crime; except that, if a person is justified in using force against another, but the person recklessly injures or creates a risk of injury to 3rd persons, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness. If a defense provided under this chapter is precluded solely because the requirement that the person's belief be reasonable has not been met, the person may be convicted only of a crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence suffices.  
[PL 2007, c. 475, §10 (AMD).]
4.  The fact that conduct may be justifiable under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action.  
[PL 1981, c. 324, §24 (NEW).]
5.  For purposes of this chapter, use by a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer or a corrections supervisor of the following is use of nondeadly force:  
A. Chemical mace or any similar substance composed of a mixture of gas and chemicals that has or is designed to have a disabling effect upon human beings; or   [PL 2009, c. 336, §5 (NEW).]
B. A less-than-lethal munition that has or is designed to have a disabling effect upon human beings. For purposes of this paragraph, "less-than-lethal munition" means a low-kinetic energy projectile designed to be discharged from a firearm that is approved by the Board of Trustees of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy.   [PL 2009, c. 336, §5 (NEW).]
[PL 2009, c. 336, §5 (RPR).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 324, §24 (RPR). PL 1997, c. 185, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 358, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 386, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 475, §10 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 336, §5 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 431, §35 (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 89 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Pabon, 2011 ME 100 (Me. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pabon, 2011 ME 100 (Me. 2011). · cites it 4× “See 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1), (2) (2010). A possibility refers to an occurrence that "may or may not happen.”
State of Maine v. Mark Cardilli Jr., 2021 ME 31 (Me. 2021). · cites it 11× “2d 452 ; 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2021). 13 [¶21] Section 108 provides two possible justifications for a person who has used deadly force.”
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). · cites it 6× “. unless the existence of the defense ...”
State v. Ouellette, 37 A.3d 921 (Me. 2012). · cites it 5× “¶ 12; see 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2011). An affirmative defense, in contrast, places the burden of persuasion on the defendant to establish certain facts by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251 (Me. 1998). · cites it 4× “11 He argues that, in reaching its decision, the court misconstrued and improperly applied 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1). 12 As a result, Michaud claims, the court erroneously excused the State from the burden of proof that section 101(1) imposes.”
State of Maine v. Richard Griffin, 2017 ME 79 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “See 17-A M.R.S. §§ 101(1), 103-B (2016). If the court finds that the defendant has raised the defense, then the State must disprove involuntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Mann, 868 A.2d 183 (Me. 2005). · cites it 6× “[¶ 12] The court accurately conveyed the prosecution’s burden of proof pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1) (Supp.2004) when it told the jury, “the State, as you know, bears the burden of proof on all elements, including if the — regarding the justification of self-defense to…”
State v. Dyer, 2001 ME 62 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “(citation and quotations omitted); see also 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1) (Supp.2000). [2] "The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.”
State of Maine v. Colby D. Conroy, 2020 ME 22 (Me. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 254(2) (2018). The State bears the burden of disproving this defense beyond a reasonable doubt if the “evidence admitted at the trial .”
State v. Wilder, 2000 ME 32 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “But that is a ruling we would have to make to uphold the District Court’s determination. The record contains sufficient evidence to *451 place the parental control justification at issue for each of the three assault charges.”
State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 26 A.3d 828 (Me. 2011). · cites it 5× “; 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2010) (requiring the State to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt expressly designated defenses, exceptions, exclusions, or authorizations “in issue as a result of evidence admitted at the trial that is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the…”
State v. Betts, 514 P.3d 341 (Kan. 2022). “120 (2) (self-defense justification "unavailable in a prosecution for an offense involving wantonness or recklessness toward innocent persons"); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A § 101(3) (self-defense justification "is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness"); Miss.”
Show all 89 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 101(1) — 62 cases
State v. Pabon, 2011 ME 100 (Me. 2011). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1), (2) (2010). A possibility refers to an occurrence that "may or may not happen.”
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). “. unless the existence of the defense ...”
State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251 (Me. 1998). “11 He argues that, in reaching its decision, the court misconstrued and improperly applied 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1). 12 As a result, Michaud claims, the court erroneously excused the State from the burden of proof that section 101(1) imposes.”
State v. Dyer, 2001 ME 62 (Me. 2001). “(citation and quotations omitted); see also 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1) (Supp.2000). [2] "The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.”
State of Maine v. Richard Griffin, 2017 ME 79 (Me. 2017). “See 17-A M.R.S. §§ 101(1), 103-B (2016). If the court finds that the defendant has raised the defense, then the State must disprove involuntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 101(2) — 17 cases
State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 26 A.3d 828 (Me. 2011). “; 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2010) (requiring the State to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt expressly designated defenses, exceptions, exclusions, or authorizations “in issue as a result of evidence admitted at the trial that is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the…”
Tribou v. State, 552 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1989).
State v. Ouellette, 37 A.3d 921 (Me. 2012). “¶ 12; see 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2011). An affirmative defense, in contrast, places the burden of persuasion on the defendant to establish certain facts by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102 (Me. 2004).
State of Maine v. Merrill Kimball, 2016 ME 75 (Me. 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 101(3) — 16 cases
State of Maine v. Mark Cardilli Jr., 2021 ME 31 (Me. 2021). “2d 452 ; 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2021). 13 [¶21] Section 108 provides two possible justifications for a person who has used deadly force.”
State v. Ouellette, 37 A.3d 921 (Me. 2012). “¶ 12; see 17-A M.R.S. § 101(1) (2011). An affirmative defense, in contrast, places the burden of persuasion on the defendant to establish certain facts by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Betts, 514 P.3d 341 (Kan. 2022). “120 (2) (self-defense justification "unavailable in a prosecution for an offense involving wantonness or recklessness toward innocent persons"); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A § 101(3) (self-defense justification "is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness"); Miss.”
State v. Wilder, 2000 ME 32 (Me. 2000). “But that is a ruling we would have to make to uphold the District Court’s determination. The record contains sufficient evidence to *451 place the parental control justification at issue for each of the three assault charges.”
State v. Sullivan, 1997 ME 71 (Me. 1997).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 101(8) — 1 case
State v. Patterson, 2005 ME 55 (Me. 2005).
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.