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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 33 (2026)

Result as an element; causation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Unless otherwise provided, when causing a result is an element of a crime, causation may be found when the result would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause.  
[PL 2017, c. 432, Pt. C, §1 (NEW).]
2.  In cases in which concurrent causation is generated as an issue, the defendant’s conduct must also have been sufficient by itself to produce the result.  
[PL 2017, c. 432, Pt. C, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW). PL 2017, c. 432, Pt. C, §1 (RPR).
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 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State v. Hopkins, 189 A.3d 741 (Me. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hopkins, 189 A.3d 741 (Me. 2018). · cites it 4× “[¶ 31] At the conclusion of the trial, Hopkins requested a specific concurrent causation instruction, 17-A M.R.S. § 33 (2017), that informed the jurors that, in order to convict her, the State would have to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt, 6 including a third…”
State of Maine v. Miranda G. Hopkins, 2018 ME 100 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 33 provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided, when causing a result is an element of a crime, causation may be found where the result would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent…”
State v. Bahre, 456 A.2d 860 (Me. 1983). · cites it 3× “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 33. There was testimony that Lax struck Ro-senstock only in the face, and that Bahre kicked the victim in the head with great force.”
State v. McLean, 2002 ME 171 (Me. 2002). · cites it 3× “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 33. A serious injury may be prevented by the presence of a helmet, but the lack of a helmet, absent unusual circumstances, cannot be the cause of the injury.”
State of Maine v. Rondon Athayde, 2022 ME 41 (Me. 2022). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 33(1) (2018). “In cases in which concurrent causation is generated as an issue, the defendant’s conduct must also have been sufficient by itself to produce the result.”
State v. Mann, 868 A.2d 183 (Me. 2005). · cites it 3× “2004) when it told the jury, “the State, as you know, bears the burden of proof on all elements, including if the — regarding the justification of self-defense to disprove its existence.”
State v. Martin, 2007 ME 23 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “[¶ 13] Martin now argues that the court’s revised instruction constituted a misstatement of the law of causation pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 33 (2006). Section 33 states: Unless otherwise provided, when causing a result is an element of a crime, causation may be found where the…”
State v. Snow, 464 A.2d 958 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 33 (1983). See also State v.”
State v. Ardolino, 1997 ME 141 (Me. 1997). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 33 (1983). “The standard to be applied to determine whether evidence is sufficient to support a jury’s conviction is whether, based on that evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any trier of fact rationally could find beyond a reasonable…”
Tri-Town Marine, Inc. v. J.C. Milliken Agency, Inc., 924 A.2d 1066 (Me. 2007). “2d 995, 1004 (discussing the plaintiff insured’s production of evidence establishing that it was the defendant insurer’s representations that caused the insured to choose to do business with that particular insurer); see also 17-A M.R.S. § 33 (2006) (providing that, in criminal…”
State v. Reardon, 486 A.2d 112 (Me. 1984). “He bases his argument on 17-A M.R.S.A. § 33, which says: Unless otherwise provided, when causing a result is an element of a crime, causation may be found where the result would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant operating either alone or concurrently with…”
State v. Saucier, 2001 ME 107 (Me. 2001). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 33 (1983). The court agreed that it would give a “standard causation instruction,” and defense counsel did not object to the causation instruction given to the jury.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 33(1) — 3 cases
State of Maine v. Rondon Athayde, 2022 ME 41 (Me. 2022). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 33(1) (2018). “In cases in which concurrent causation is generated as an issue, the defendant’s conduct must also have been sufficient by itself to produce the result.”
State of Maine v. Jessica A. Williams, 2024 ME 37 (Me. 2024).
State of Maine v. David MacKenzie, 2025 ME 79 (Me. 2025).
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.