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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 103 (2026)

Competing harms

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Conduct that the person believes to be necessary to avoid imminent physical harm to that person or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute.  
[PL 2007, c. 173, §18 (AMD).]
2.  When the person was reckless or criminally negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of the person's conduct, the justification provided in subsection 1 does not apply in a prosecution for any crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability.  
[PL 2007, c. 173, §18 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 2007, c. 173, §18 (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 32 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Holland, 2009 ME 72 (Me. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Holland, 2009 ME 72 (Me. 2009). · cites it 6× “Competing Harms Instruction [¶ 58] Holland argues that the court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction on the defense of competing harms, 17-A M.R.S. § 103. Holland argues that, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to him, he met all of the…”
State v. Dansinger, 521 A.2d 685 (Me. 1987). · cites it 6× “Their defense to the criminal trespass was based on (a) the "competing harms" statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103 (1983), and (b) principles of international law.”
State v. Nadeau, 920 A.2d 452 (Me. 2007). · cites it 7× “” 17-A M.R.S. § 103. Nadeau’s subjective belief that he had to travel a mile on Route 1 to the Irving station, while intoxicated, has to be weighed against the harm he is fleeing.”
State v. Caswell, 2001 ME 23 (Me. 2001). · cites it 6× “[1] Caswell contends that the court erred in (1) ruling that a competing harms justification, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103(1) (1983) [2] was not generated by the evidence, and (2) *377 excluding expert testimony in support of her competing harms justification.”
State of Maine v. Eric Nobles, 2018 ME 26 (Me. 2018). “2d 452 (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted); see 17-A M.R.S. § 103(1) (2017). If generated, the State has the burden of persuasion to disprove the justification beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Greenwald, 454 A.2d 827 (Me. 1982). · cites it 3× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 103 comment. 4 *830 The Maine legislature narrowed “harm” as existed in the New Hampshire Code to “imminent physical harm.”
State v. Knowles, 495 A.2d 335 (Me. 1985). · cites it 3× “The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the competing harms defense, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103 (1983). We determine that the court improperly denied the defendant’s request for such an instruction.”
State v. Moore, 577 A.2d 348 (Me. 1990). · cites it 3× “) erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the competing harms defense, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103 (1983). Although Moore’s conditional plea of guilty did not meet the requirements of M.”
State v. Lemieux, 2001 ME 46 (Me. 2001). · cites it 3× “Lemieux contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction on the competing harms defense pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103. 2 We disagree and affirm the judgment.”
State v. Brockelbank, 33 A.3d 925 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “At the close of evidence, the jury was instructed on the competing harms defense, see 17-A M.R.S. § 103 (2010), and the State’s burden to disprove the existence of the defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, see 17-A M.”
State v. Poole, 568 A.2d 830 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “The trooper issued Poole a summons and drove him home. Poole’s first jury trial resulted in a mistrial because of a hung jury.”
State v. Wilder, 2000 ME 32 (Me. 2000). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103(3) (Supp.1999). The law now specifies that, where recklessness is an element of a crime, as it is here, and the reasonableness of one’s belief is at issue due to a justification defense, a person may be convicted “only if holding the belief, when viewed…”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 103(1) — 18 cases
State v. Dansinger, 521 A.2d 685 (Me. 1987). “Their defense to the criminal trespass was based on (a) the "competing harms" statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103 (1983), and (b) principles of international law.”
State v. Caswell, 2001 ME 23 (Me. 2001). “[1] Caswell contends that the court erred in (1) ruling that a competing harms justification, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103(1) (1983) [2] was not generated by the evidence, and (2) *377 excluding expert testimony in support of her competing harms justification.”
State of Maine v. Eric Nobles, 2018 ME 26 (Me. 2018). “2d 452 (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted); see 17-A M.R.S. § 103(1) (2017). If generated, the State has the burden of persuasion to disprove the justification beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Nadeau, 920 A.2d 452 (Me. 2007). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 103. Nadeau’s subjective belief that he had to travel a mile on Route 1 to the Irving station, while intoxicated, has to be weighed against the harm he is fleeing.”
State v. Greenwald, 454 A.2d 827 (Me. 1982). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 103 comment. 4 *830 The Maine legislature narrowed “harm” as existed in the New Hampshire Code to “imminent physical harm.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 103(1)(1983) — 1 case
State v. Lemieux, 2001 ME 46 (Me. 2001). “Lemieux contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction on the competing harms defense pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103. 2 We disagree and affirm the judgment.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 103(2) — 1 case
State of Maine v. Heath G. Demerchant, 2025 ME 49 (Me. 2025).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 103(3) — 1 case
State v. Wilder, 2000 ME 32 (Me. 2000). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103(3) (Supp.1999). The law now specifies that, where recklessness is an element of a crime, as it is here, and the reasonableness of one’s belief is at issue due to a justification defense, a person may be convicted “only if holding the belief, when viewed…”
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.