Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151 (2026)

Criminal conspiracy

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if, with the intent that conduct be performed that in fact would constitute a crime or crimes, the actor agrees with one or more others to engage in or cause the performance of the conduct and the most serious crime that is the object of the conspiracy is:

A. Murder. Violation of this paragraph is a Class A crime; [PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

B. A Class A crime. Violation of this paragraph is a Class B crime; [PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

C. A Class B crime. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime; [PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

D. A Class C crime. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or [PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

E. A Class D or Class E crime. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime. [PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

2. If the actor knows that one with whom the actor agrees has agreed or will agree with a 3rd person to effect the same objective, the actor is deemed to have agreed with the 3rd person, whether or not the actor knows the identity of the 3rd person.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

3. A person who conspires to commit more than one crime is guilty of only one conspiracy if the crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.

[PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]

4. A person may not be convicted of criminal conspiracy unless it is alleged and proved that the actor, or one with whom the actor conspired, took a substantial step toward commission of the crime. A substantial step is any conduct which, under the circumstances in which it occurs, is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's intent to complete commission of the crime; provided that speech alone may not constitute a substantial step.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

5. Accomplice liability for crimes committed in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy is to be determined by the provisions of section 57.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

6. For the purpose of determining the period of limitations under section 8, the following provisions govern.

A. A criminal conspiracy is deemed to continue until the criminal conduct that is its object is performed, or the agreement that it be performed is frustrated or is abandoned by the actor and by those with whom the actor conspired. For purposes of this subsection, the object of the criminal conspiracy includes escape from the scene of the crime, distribution of the fruits of the crime, and measures, other than silence, for concealing the commission of the crime or the identity of its perpetrators. [PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

B. If a person abandons the agreement, the criminal conspiracy terminates as to the actor only when:

(1) The actor informs a law enforcement officer of the existence of the criminal conspiracy and of the actor's participation therein; or

(2) The actor advises those with whom the actor conspired of the actor's abandonment. Abandonment is an affirmative defense. [PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

7. It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that another person with whom the actor is alleged to have conspired has been acquitted, has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, is not subject to prosecution as a result of immaturity, or is immune from or otherwise not subject to prosecution.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

8. It is a defense to prosecution under this section that, had the objective of the criminal conspiracy been achieved, the actor would have been immune from liability under the law defining the offense, or as an accomplice under section 57.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

9.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (RP); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

10. It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the objective of the conspiracy is a violation of section 853‑B and the actor's participation was engaging or agreeing to personally engage in a sexual act or sexual contact for pecuniary benefit.

[PL 2023, c. 316, §2 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §35 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 510, §§29-31 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §5 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF). PL 2023, c. 316, §2 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: State v. Williams, 52 A.3d 911 (Me. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Williams, 52 A.3d 911 (Me. 2012). · cites it 6× “§ 201(1)(A) (2011), 1 and conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2011), 2 entered in the Superior Court (York County, Brennan, J.”

State v. George, 52 A.3d 903 (Me. 2012). · cites it 5× “§ 201(1)(A) (2011), 1 and conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2011), 2 entered in the Superior Court (York County, Brennan, J.”

State v. Lopez, 184 A.3d 880 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 201(1)(A) (2017), and one count of conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2017). After the State filed a notice of joinder concerning Lopez, Nguany, and Mohamed, Lopez pleaded not guilty to the charges at arraignment.”

State v. Spearin, 477 A.2d 1147 (Me. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 802 (1978), 1 conspiracy to commit arson, Class C, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 151 (1983), and solicitation of arson, Class C, 17-A M.”

State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “[¶ 1] Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement in which Christopher Nelson Bilynsky pleaded nolo contendere to criminal conspiracy (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(B) (2006), Bilynsky appeals from the Superior Court’s (Sagadahoc County, Mills and Delahanty, JJ.”

State of Maine v. Michael R. McNaughton, 2017 ME 173 (Me. 2017). “By the same indictment, McNaughton was also charged with conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2016). The State dismissed that charge before trial.”

State of Maine v. John Kendall, 2016 ME 147 (Me. 2016). “§ 358(B)(4) (2015); one count of conspiracy to commit intentional evasion of tax (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(D) (2015) and 36 M.R.”

State v. Woo, 2007 ME 151 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “…testified that this is a partial recipe for methamphetamine. [3] Absent a conspiracy theory not at issue here. See 17-A M.R.S. § 151 (2006).”

State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr., 2013 ME 21 (Me. 2013). · cites it 4× “§ 511(1)(B), (3) (2012), and one count of conspiracy to commit a violation of privacy (Class E), 17-A M.R.S. §§ 151(1)(E), 511(1)(B), (3) (2012).”

State of Maine v. William True, 2017 ME 2 (Me. 2017). “§ 201(1)(A), (B); conspiracy to commit intentional murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2015); and hindering apprehension or prosecution (Class B), 17-A M.”

State of Maine v. Troy D. Hastey, 2018 ME 147 (Me. 2018). “§ 802(2) (2017) (arson); 17-A M.R.S. § 1252(4-B)(B) (2017) (enhanced sentence for repeat sexual offender).”

State v. Begin, 652 A.2d 102 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 151(1), 151(4) (1983). Because the trial court erroneously failed to instruct on a defense to gross sexual assault generated by the evidence, the jury was unable properly to make that determination.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(1) — 8 cases

State v. Quirion, 2000 ME 103 (Me. 2000).

State v. Spearin, 477 A.2d 1147 (Me. 1984). “§ 802 (1978), 1 conspiracy to commit arson, Class C, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 151 (1983), and solicitation of arson, Class C, 17-A M.”

State v. Begin, 652 A.2d 102 (Me. 1995). “17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 151(1), 151(4) (1983). Because the trial court erroneously failed to instruct on a defense to gross sexual assault generated by the evidence, the jury was unable properly to make that determination.”

State v. Pierce, 899 A.2d 801 (Me. 2006).

State v. Leavitt, 625 A.2d 302 (Me. 1993).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(1)(A) — 7 cases

State v. Williams, 52 A.3d 911 (Me. 2012). “§ 201(1)(A) (2011), 1 and conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2011), 2 entered in the Superior Court (York County, Brennan, J.”

State v. George, 52 A.3d 903 (Me. 2012). “§ 201(1)(A) (2011), 1 and conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2011), 2 entered in the Superior Court (York County, Brennan, J.”

State v. Lopez, 184 A.3d 880 (Me. 2018). “§ 201(1)(A) (2017), and one count of conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2017). After the State filed a notice of joinder concerning Lopez, Nguany, and Mohamed, Lopez pleaded not guilty to the charges at arraignment.”

State of Maine v. Michael R. McNaughton, 2017 ME 173 (Me. 2017). “By the same indictment, McNaughton was also charged with conspiracy to commit murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2016). The State dismissed that charge before trial.”

State of Maine v. William True, 2017 ME 2 (Me. 2017). “§ 201(1)(A), (B); conspiracy to commit intentional murder (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(A) (2015); and hindering apprehension or prosecution (Class B), 17-A M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(1)(B) — 5 cases

State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107 (Me. 2007). “[¶ 1] Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement in which Christopher Nelson Bilynsky pleaded nolo contendere to criminal conspiracy (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(B) (2006), Bilynsky appeals from the Superior Court’s (Sagadahoc County, Mills and Delahanty, JJ.”

State v. Fortune, 34 A.3d 1115 (Me. 2011).

State v. Drown, 937 A.2d 157 (Me. 2007).

State of Maine v. David L. Thompson, 2017 ME 13 (Me. 2017).

State v. Bilynsky, 2009 ME 121 (Me. 2009).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(1)(C) — 1 case

State of Maine v. David Reckards, 2015 ME 31 (Me. 2015).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(1)(D) — 1 case

State of Maine v. John Kendall, 2016 ME 147 (Me. 2016). “§ 358(B)(4) (2015); one count of conspiracy to commit intentional evasion of tax (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 151(1)(D) (2015) and 36 M.R.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(1)(E) — 1 case

State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr., 2013 ME 21 (Me. 2013). “§ 511(1)(B), (3) (2012), and one count of conspiracy to commit a violation of privacy (Class E), 17-A M.R.S. §§ 151(1)(E), 511(1)(B), (3) (2012).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(3) — 1 case

State v. Begin, 652 A.2d 102 (Me. 1995). “17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 151(1), 151(4) (1983). Because the trial court erroneously failed to instruct on a defense to gross sexual assault generated by the evidence, the jury was unable properly to make that determination.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(4) — 5 cases

State of Maine v. Troy D. Hastey, 2018 ME 147 (Me. 2018). “§ 802(2) (2017) (arson); 17-A M.R.S. § 1252(4-B)(B) (2017) (enhanced sentence for repeat sexual offender).”

United States v. Luciano Pascacio-Rodriguez, 749 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2014).

United States v. Xochitl Garcia-Santana, 743 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2014).

United States v. Xochitl Garcia-Santana, 774 F.3d 528 (2014).

State of Maine v. Troy D. Hastey, 2018 ME 147 (Me. 2018).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 151(9) — 3 cases

State v. Leavitt, 625 A.2d 302 (Me. 1993).

State v. Pierce, 899 A.2d 801 (Me. 2006).

State v. Risio, 388 A.2d 896 (Me. 1978).

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.