Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 361 (2026)

Affirmative defense of claim of right

✓ current as of May 2026

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

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this chapter that the defendant acted in good faith under a claim of right to property or services involved, including, in cases of theft of a trade secret, that the defendant rightfully knew the trade secret or that it was available to the defendant from a source other than the owner of the trade secret. [PL 2001, c. 383, §50 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

1.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §50 (RP); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

2.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §50 (RP); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF); PL 2003, c. 1, §1 (RP).]

3.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §50 (RP); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §58 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 671, §25 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §50 (RPR). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 426, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 1, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: State v. King, 379 A.2d 131 (Me. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. King, 379 A.2d 131 (Me. 1977). · cites it 8× “That section reads: “Proof that the defendant was in exclusive possession of property that had recently been taken under circumstances constituting a violation of this chapter or of chapter 27 shall give rise to a presumption that the defendant is guilty of the theft or robbery…”

State v. Ketchum, 1997 ME 93 (Me. 1997). · cites it 10× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 361. The "presumption" referred to in the statute must be read as a "permissible inference.”

Jordan v. Town of Waldoboro, 943 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 2019). “" Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 361. We do not address, however, whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to include known facts that established an affirmative defense, because Jordan has made no such claim.”

State v. Bachelder, 403 A.2d 754 (Me. 1979). · cites it 4× “[4] He did instruct the jury, however, that, in order to draw the permissible inference of guilt, the jury must find that the defendant "was aware of the presence of those goods in the trunk of the car" and that "he in some way participated in the fact that they were in the…”

State v. Dill, 2001 ME 150 (Me. 2001). · cites it 3× “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2). 3 Dill’s attorney also objected to the court’s plan to both read the instructions to the jury and give the jury a written copy of the instructions.”

State v. Sapiel, 432 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “Court, the Defendant raises five issues, contending: (1) the war-rantless search and seizure of the Defendant’s automobile was in violation of the Maine and United States Constitutions; (2) the presiding justice abused his discretion in admitting certain photographs at trial;…”

State v. Robinson, 561 A.2d 492 (Me. 1989). · cites it 3× “2 In addition, the court instructed the jury under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2) (1983) on the permissible inference, including the inference of theft, that may be drawn from the possession of property recently stolen.”

State v. LaPlante, 534 A.2d 959 (Me. 1987). · cites it 2× “The jury was instructed under the exclusive possession of recently stolen goods provision of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2). 8 Under the consolidation provisions of 17-A M.”

State v. Carsetti, 536 A.2d 1121 (Me. 1988). · cites it 3× “Thus, he argues that here the State relied exclusively on the statutory inference arising from 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361, and, accordingly, the court should have instructed pursuant to Rule 303(c).”

State v. Mair, 670 A.2d 910 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “Finally, Mair contends that the court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361 (1983). 4 Because Mair did not object, we review the instruction in the context of the entire charge to the jury to determine if it “constitutes highly prejudicial error tending…”

State v. Durgan, 467 A.2d 165 (Me. 1983). “In 1975, this rule was codified by statute and is now located at 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2) (1983). As it relates to the present appeal, Section 361(2) provides that: [p]roof that the defendant was in exclusive possession of property that had recently been taken under circumstances…”

State v. DePhilippo, 628 A.2d 1057 (Me. 1993). “The State concedes that its case turns on the application of the inference permitted by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2) (1983): Proof that the defendant was in exclusive possession of property that had been recently taken under circumstances constituting a violation of this chapter or of…”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 361(2) — 27 cases

State v. King, 379 A.2d 131 (Me. 1977). “That section reads: “Proof that the defendant was in exclusive possession of property that had recently been taken under circumstances constituting a violation of this chapter or of chapter 27 shall give rise to a presumption that the defendant is guilty of the theft or robbery…”

State v. Ketchum, 1997 ME 93 (Me. 1997). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 361. The "presumption" referred to in the statute must be read as a "permissible inference.”

State v. Bachelder, 403 A.2d 754 (Me. 1979). “[4] He did instruct the jury, however, that, in order to draw the permissible inference of guilt, the jury must find that the defendant "was aware of the presence of those goods in the trunk of the car" and that "he in some way participated in the fact that they were in the…”

State v. Dill, 2001 ME 150 (Me. 2001). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 361(2). 3 Dill’s attorney also objected to the court’s plan to both read the instructions to the jury and give the jury a written copy of the instructions.”

State v. Sapiel, 432 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1981). “Court, the Defendant raises five issues, contending: (1) the war-rantless search and seizure of the Defendant’s automobile was in violation of the Maine and United States Constitutions; (2) the presiding justice abused his discretion in admitting certain photographs at trial;…”

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.