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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1323 (2026)

Mandatory consideration of restitution

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1977, c. 455, §3 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 352, §3 (RPR). PL 1983, c. 793, §1 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 157, §4 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 389, §3 (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 11 cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). · cites it 3× “The State purports to cross-appeal from the denial of its motion to correct the sentence because the court did not order restitution pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1323(2), 1325 (2018). M.R.”
State v. Lewis, 1998 ME 83 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “[¶ 10] We agree with Lewis’s contention that, because it leaves to future determination “the amount of restitution to be paid” and “the time and method of payment,” the court’s restitution order violates 17-A M.R.S.A §§ 1323 and 1326 (Supp.1997).”
State v. Berube, 1997 ME 165 (Me. 1997). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323(2) (Supp.1996) (in those cases where the court chooses not to order restitution, it must state the reasons for its decision on the record).”
State v. Cloutier, 646 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994). “17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1323(1)-(2) (Supp.1993).”
State v. Webber, 613 A.2d 375 (Me. 1992). “” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323(1) (Supp.1991). Restitution may not be ordered when it would pose “an excessive financial hardship on the offender or dependent of the offender.”
State v. Pease, 940 A.2d 189 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “1 They *190 challenge the legality of the restitution order, arguing that the court violated 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1323, 1325, 1326-A (2006) by failing to: (1) make a reasonable inquiry into the victim’s financial loss, and (2) find that they had the financial capacity to pay…”
State v. Lemieux, 600 A.2d 1099 (Me. 1991). “with respect to the extent of the victim’s financial loss,” the prosecutor who requested the restitution order should have responded with an adequate factual foundation for setting the amount of the victim's economic loss.”
State v. Johnson, 667 A.2d 110 (Me. 1995). “An order of restitution is authorized by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323 (Supp.1994). Section 1325 sets forth the criteria that a court must consider when it decides whether restitution is appropriate.”
State v. Walker, 675 A.2d 499 (Me. 1996). “” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323(1) (Supp.1995). We have said that a *501 prosecutor who requests an order of restitution should respond with “an adequate factual foundation for setting the amount of the victim’s economic loss.”
State v. McCray, 1999 ME 151 (Me. 1999). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323 (1983 & Supp.1998). “Restitution may be authorized, in whole or in part, as compensation for economic loss.”
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “35,4 arguing that the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the State’s request for restitution as required by 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1323(2), 1325. [¶9] Ouellette appeals the judgment of conviction, and, in its appellee’s brief, the State challenges the court’s denial of…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1323(1) — 4 cases
State v. Cloutier, 646 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994). “17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1323(1)-(2) (Supp.1993).”
State v. Webber, 613 A.2d 375 (Me. 1992). “” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323(1) (Supp.1991). Restitution may not be ordered when it would pose “an excessive financial hardship on the offender or dependent of the offender.”
State v. Pease, 940 A.2d 189 (Me. 2007). “1 They *190 challenge the legality of the restitution order, arguing that the court violated 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1323, 1325, 1326-A (2006) by failing to: (1) make a reasonable inquiry into the victim’s financial loss, and (2) find that they had the financial capacity to pay…”
State v. Walker, 675 A.2d 499 (Me. 1996). “” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323(1) (Supp.1995). We have said that a *501 prosecutor who requests an order of restitution should respond with “an adequate factual foundation for setting the amount of the victim’s economic loss.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1323(2) — 3 cases
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “The State purports to cross-appeal from the denial of its motion to correct the sentence because the court did not order restitution pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1323(2), 1325 (2018). M.R.”
State v. Berube, 1997 ME 165 (Me. 1997). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1323(2) (Supp.1996) (in those cases where the court chooses not to order restitution, it must state the reasons for its decision on the record).”
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “35,4 arguing that the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the State’s request for restitution as required by 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1323(2), 1325. [¶9] Ouellette appeals the judgment of conviction, and, in its appellee’s brief, the State challenges the court’s denial of…”
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.