Go Syfert

Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 3 (2026)

All crimes defined by statute; civil actions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. No conduct constitutes a crime unless it is prohibited

A. By this code; or [PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]

B. By any statute or private act outside this code, including any rule, regulation or ordinance authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute. [PL 1977, c. 510, §13 (AMD).]

[PL 1977, c. 510, §13 (AMD).]

2. This code does not bar, suspend, or otherwise affect any right or liability for damages, penalty, forfeiture or other remedy authorized by law to be recovered or enforced in a civil action, regardless of whether the conduct involved in such civil action constitutes an offense defined in this code.

[PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §12 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 510, §13 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1977–2019 · leading case: State v. Elliott, 2010 ME 3 (Me. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Elliott, 2010 ME 3 (Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 17-A M.R.S. § 3(1) (2009). We construe the statute defining an offense de novo to determine what elements constitute the crime.”

Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 3(2) (1983). Section 3(2) of the Maine Criminal Code provides: This code does not bar, suspend, or otherwise affect any right or liability for damages, penalty, forfeiture or other remedy authorized by law to be recovered or enforced in a civil action,…”

State of Maine v. Crystal Hodsdon, 2016 ME 46 (Me. 2016). “” [¶ 6] After a four-day jury-waived, trial, the* court entered a judgment convicting Hodsdon of theft by deception (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 3,54(1)(B)(1). In its ruling, the court determined that the children did not reside with Hodsdon “anything close to [fifty] percent of the…”

State of Maine v. Peter L. Robbins, 2019 ME 138 (Me. 2019). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 3(1) (2018) (stating that “[n]o conduct constitutes a crime unless it is prohibited [by statute]”); 17-A M.”

State v. Dube, 409 A.2d 1102 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “The separation of powers among the various branches of our government is a fundamental concept of our constitutional system.”

State v. Austin, 381 A.2d 652 (Me. 1978). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 3(1). The legislature nowhere expressly included a similar provision stating that all defenses are also now embodied in statute.”

State v. Haley, 629 A.2d 605 (Me. 1993). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 3(1); see also Hills, 574 A.”

State v. Foster, 379 A.2d 1219 (Me. 1977). “Thus the Code manifests legislative approval, not rejection, of the established judicial precedents in Maine holding the solicitation of serious crime to be criminal.”

State v. Bresett, 750 A.2d 1252 (Me. 2000). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 3 (1983). The comment to section 3 indicates that the provision was meant to abolish common law crimes and “provide the public with the security of knowing that all conduct subject to criminal penalties can be found in the written law.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 3(1) — 5 cases

State v. Elliott, 2010 ME 3 (Me. 2010). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 3(1) (2009). We construe the statute defining an offense de novo to determine what elements constitute the crime.”

State of Maine v. Peter L. Robbins, 2019 ME 138 (Me. 2019). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 3(1) (2018) (stating that “[n]o conduct constitutes a crime unless it is prohibited [by statute]”); 17-A M.”

State v. Dube, 409 A.2d 1102 (Me. 1979). “The separation of powers among the various branches of our government is a fundamental concept of our constitutional system.”

State v. Austin, 381 A.2d 652 (Me. 1978). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 3(1). The legislature nowhere expressly included a similar provision stating that all defenses are also now embodied in statute.”

State v. Haley, 629 A.2d 605 (Me. 1993). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 3(1); see also Hills, 574 A.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 3(2) — 1 case

Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 3(2) (1983). Section 3(2) of the Maine Criminal Code provides: This code does not bar, suspend, or otherwise affect any right or liability for damages, penalty, forfeiture or other remedy authorized by law to be recovered or enforced in a civil action,…”

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.