Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1112 (2026)

Analysis of scheduled drugs

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. A laboratory that receives a drug or substance from a law enforcement officer or agency for analysis as a scheduled drug shall, if it is capable of so doing, analyze the same as requested by a method designed to accurately determine the composition of the substance, including by chemical means, visual examination, or both, and shall issue a certificate stating the results of the analysis. The certificate, when duly signed and sworn to by a person certified as qualified for this purpose by the Department of Health and Human Services under certification standards set by that department, is admissible in evidence in a court of the State, and gives rise to a permissible inference under the Maine Rules of Evidence, Rule 303 that the composition, quality and quantity of the drug or substance are as stated in the certificate, unless, within 10 days written notice to the prosecution, the defendant requests that a qualified witness testify as to the composition, quality and quantity.

[PL 2001, c. 667, Pt. D, §34 (RPR); PL 2001, c. 667, Pt. D, §36 (AFF); PL 2003, c. 689, Pt. B, §6 (REV).]

2. Transfers of drugs and substances to and from a laboratory for purposes of analysis under this chapter may be by certified or registered mail, and when so made shall be deemed to comply with all the requirements regarding the continuity of custody of physical evidence.

[PL 1975, c. 740, §105 (AMD).]

3.

[PL 1975, c. 740, §106 (RP).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §§104-106 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 512, §34 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §142 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 419, §22 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 667, §D34 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 667, §D36 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 689, §B6 (REV).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: State v. Barnard, 2003 ME 79 (Me. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Barnard, 2003 ME 79 (Me. 2003). · cites it 6× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112(1) (Supp.2001) (amended by P.”

State v. Barnard, 2001 ME 80 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “The court concluded that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112 requires the laboratory issuing the certificate to perform an analysis on the drug in order for the certificate to be admissible and to be given prima facie evidence status as to the composition of the drug.”

State of Maine v. Macie N. Jones, 2018 ME 17 (Me. 2018). · cites it 6× “Jones argues that 17-A M.R.S. § 1112 (2017) is facially unconstitutional and that the court’s admission of a lab certificate in lieu of live witness testimony pursuant to that statute was a violation of her right of confrontation.”

Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Jud. Court, 355 A.2d 341 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “17-A MRSA § 1112, sub-§ 1, as enacted by PL 1975, c.”

State v. Navarro, 621 A.2d 408 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112 (1983) provides in relevant part that: 1.”

State v. Christianson, 404 A.2d 999 (Me. 1979). “Despite the evident nature of the certifications as hearsay, they were held to have been rendered admissible as evidence by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112(1), which provides: “A laboratory which receives.”

State v. Leavitt, 625 A.2d 302 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112 (1983) provides: A laboratory which receives a drug or substance from a law enforcement officer .”

Gonyou v. State of Maine (Me. Super. Ct 2009). · cites it 2× “Counsel did not file a motion pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1112. Trial counsel did file a motion in limine to exclude the results of the field test of the residue on the digital scales, which was granted without objection.”

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1112(1): 4 cases

State v. Barnard, 2003 ME 79 (Me. 2003). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112(1) (Supp.2001) (amended by P.”

State v. Barnard, 2001 ME 80 (Me. 2001). “The court concluded that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112 requires the laboratory issuing the certificate to perform an analysis on the drug in order for the certificate to be admissible and to be given prima facie evidence status as to the composition of the drug.”

State v. Christianson, 404 A.2d 999 (Me. 1979). “Despite the evident nature of the certifications as hearsay, they were held to have been rendered admissible as evidence by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1112(1), which provides: “A laboratory which receives.”

State of Maine v. Macie N. Jones, 2018 ME 17 (Me. 2018). “Jones argues that 17-A M.R.S. § 1112 (2017) is facially unconstitutional and that the court’s admission of a lab certificate in lieu of live witness testimony pursuant to that statute was a violation of her right of confrontation.”

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.