Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1978–1982 · leading case:
State v. Keaten, 390 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1978).
State v. Keaten, 390 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1978).
· cites it 3× “As 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) states: If a statute defining a crime in this code does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to some or all of the elements of the crime, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required Exceptions to the rule requiring a culpable…”
State v. Flick, 425 A.2d 167 (Me. 1981).
“On appeal, the defendant argues for the first time that Woodbury was wrongly decided, and that § 201(1)(B) must, under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11, be construed to require proof of one of the culpable states of mind defined in 17-A M.”
State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980).
“In a public or private place, he knowingly accosts, insults, taunts or challenges any person with offensive, derisive or annoying words, or by gestures or other physical conduct, which would in fact have a direct tendency to cause a violent response by an ordinary person in the…”
State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 1109 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) provides as follows: 5.”
State v. Saucier, 421 A.2d 57 (Me. 1980).
“Citing 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) (1979), 4 defendant *59 contends that a culpable mental state is an element of every offense unless the statute expressly negates that element or unless a legislative intent to dispense with a culpable mental state otherwise appears.”
State v. Burnham, 406 A.2d 889 (Me. 1979).
“See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5). 15 . In instructing the jury, the Court must ever be conscious that: 1.”
State v. Morey, 427 A.2d 479 (Me. 1981).
“Furthermore, the comment’s statement of the policy behind section 752-A suggests why the exceptions in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) are inapplicable. Section 11(5) states: If a statute defining a crime in this code does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to…”
State v. Sommer, 409 A.2d 666 (Me. 1979).
“The State had to show that the acts were performed either with the "conscious object to cause" his victim to have fear of imminent bodily injury, id.”
State v. Valentine, 443 A.2d 573 (Me. 1982).
“See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(3) (Supp.1980). 3 III.”
State v. Curry, 420 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1980).
“Our inquiry is governed by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5), which states: If a statute defining a crime in this code does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to some or all of the elements of the crime, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required, pursuant to…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 11(1) — 1 case
State v. Sommer, 409 A.2d 666 (Me. 1979).
“The State had to show that the acts were performed either with the "conscious object to cause" his victim to have fear of imminent bodily injury, id.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 11(3) — 1 case
State v. Valentine, 443 A.2d 573 (Me. 1982).
“See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(3) (Supp.1980). 3 III.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 11(4) — 1 case
State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1980).
“In a public or private place, he knowingly accosts, insults, taunts or challenges any person with offensive, derisive or annoying words, or by gestures or other physical conduct, which would in fact have a direct tendency to cause a violent response by an ordinary person in the…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 11(5) — 6 cases
State v. Keaten, 390 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1978).
“As 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) states: If a statute defining a crime in this code does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to some or all of the elements of the crime, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required Exceptions to the rule requiring a culpable…”
State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 1109 (Me. 1981).
“17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) provides as follows: 5.”
State v. Saucier, 421 A.2d 57 (Me. 1980).
“Citing 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) (1979), 4 defendant *59 contends that a culpable mental state is an element of every offense unless the statute expressly negates that element or unless a legislative intent to dispense with a culpable mental state otherwise appears.”
State v. Burnham, 406 A.2d 889 (Me. 1979).
“See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5). 15 . In instructing the jury, the Court must ever be conscious that: 1.”
State v. Morey, 427 A.2d 479 (Me. 1981).
“Furthermore, the comment’s statement of the policy behind section 752-A suggests why the exceptions in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) are inapplicable. Section 11(5) states: If a statute defining a crime in this code does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 11(5)(B) — 1 case
State v. Keaten, 390 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1978).
“As 17-A M.R.S.A. § 11(5) states: If a statute defining a crime in this code does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to some or all of the elements of the crime, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required Exceptions to the rule requiring a culpable…”
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.