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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1174 (2026)

Sentencing procedure

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1995, c. 680, §5 (NEW). PL 2015, c. 282, §1 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 113, Pt. A, §1 (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 7 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Alexandre v. State, 927 A.2d 1155 (Me. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alexandre v. State, 927 A.2d 1155 (Me. 2007). “Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1174(1) (2006), the victim must be provided an opportunity to participate at sentencing by making an oral statement in open court or submitting a written statement to the court.”
State v. Hillman, 2000 ME 71 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “However, sentencing was continued until September 29, 1999, in order to comply with 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1174 2 & 1257 3 and afford the then eight-year-old victim and family members the opportunity to appear at sentencing.”
Joseph L. Richard v. Sec'y of State, 2018 ME 122 (Me. 2018). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 1174 (2017); Anton, 463 A.2d at 708 (explaining that “[s]ome courts have found the legislature’s intent to create a civil offense undercut by excessive use of terminology associated with the criminal law”).”
State v. Dilley, 2008 ME 5 (Me. 2008). “imposed on him: (1) that the court abused its discretion in considering community impact statements, including that of the Boothbay Region Domestic Abuse Prevention Council; (2) that the court abused its discretion in determining the maximum sentence for each conviction because…”
United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). “§ 46:1844K (same); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 1174 (same); Mass, Ann.”
Richard v. Sec'y of State, 192 A.3d 611 (Me. 2018). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 1174 (2017) ; Anton , 463 A.”
Griffin v. State of Maine (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “” See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1174. After Mooney presented his statement to the court, both Griffin and his counsel were given an unfettered opportunity to address the justice.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1174(1) — 1 case
Alexandre v. State, 927 A.2d 1155 (Me. 2007). “Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1174(1) (2006), the victim must be provided an opportunity to participate at sentencing by making an oral statement in open court or submitting a written statement to the court.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1174(3) — 1 case
State v. Dilley, 2008 ME 5 (Me. 2008). “imposed on him: (1) that the court abused its discretion in considering community impact statements, including that of the Boothbay Region Domestic Abuse Prevention Council; (2) that the court abused its discretion in determining the maximum sentence for each conviction because…”
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.