Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 32 (2026)

Elements of crimes defined

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A person may not be convicted of a crime unless each element of the crime is proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. "Element of the crime" means the forbidden conduct; the attendant circumstances specified in the definition of the crime; the intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence as may be required; and any required result. [PL 2007, c. 475, §9 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW). PL 2007, c. 475, §9 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 1983–2020 · leading case: Taylor v. Comm'r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 481 A.2d 139 (Me. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. Comm'r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 481 A.2d 139 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “3 See 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 32, 40 (1983). If the State is successful, the “defendant shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he lacks criminal responsibility.”

State of Maine v. John M. Burbank, 2019 ME 37 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 17-A M.R.S. § 32 (2018); 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A).”

State of Maine v. Emanuel J. Sloboda, 2020 ME 103 (Me. 2020). · cites it 2× “[¶8] Title 17-A M.R.S. § 32 (2020) organizes the elements of a crime into four categories: “the forbidden conduct; the attendant circumstances specified in the definition of the crime; the intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence as may be required; and any required…”

State v. McNally, 2007 ME 66 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “Because the verdict form used in this case created a serious potential for juror misunderstanding regarding the reasonable doubt standard and McNally's right to be presumed innocent, we treat the error as obvious and vacate his conviction. [1] The entry is: Judgment vacated.”

State v. Renfro, 157 A.3d 775 (Me. 2017). “§§ 111, 2484(3) (2016) (collectively providing that the standard of proof for a license suspension hearing is proof by a preponderance of the evidence and that the hearing is not governed by the Maine Rules of Evidence), with 17-A M.R.S. § 32 (2016) (providing that the elements…”

State of Maine v. Richard Griffin, 2017 ME 79 (Me. 2017). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 32 (2016); 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A).”

State v. Donovan, 2004 ME 81 (Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “[¶ 24] Although not technically considered an element, see 17-A M.R.S.A. § 32 (1983), it is clear that in order to obtain a conviction, the State must always prove that the accused was the person who committed the crime.”

State of Maine v. James D. Graham, 2015 ME 35 (Me. 2015). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 32 (2014). [¶ 17] At trial, Graham raised the defense of mental abnormality set out in 17-A M.”

State v. Cote, 462 A.2d 487 (Me. 1983). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 32 (1983). 5 . It is the duty of the parties to review the record presented on appeal and to seek correction of that record under M.”

State v. Pheng, 2002 ME 40 (Me. 2002). “17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 32, 34 (1983 & Supp. 2001).”

State v. St. Pierre, 1997 ME 107 (Me. 1997). “1979); 17-A M.R.S.A. § 32(1983). The “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt requirement” prescribed by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution applies in state as well as federal proceedings.”

State v. Gallant, 847 A.2d 413 (Me. 2004). “2003), the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Gallant acted intentionally or knowingly in causing the victim’s death, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 32 (1983); 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(A).”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 32(1983) — 1 case

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.