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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 38 (2026)

Mental abnormality

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Evidence of an abnormal condition of the mind may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind.   [PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]
An actor does not suffer from an abnormal condition of the mind based solely on the discovery of, knowledge about or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted nonforcible romantic or sexual advance toward the actor or in which the actor and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship.   [PL 2019, c. 462, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW). PL 2019, c. 462, §1 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: State of Maine v. James D. Graham, 2015 ME 35, 113 A.3d 1102.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Maine v. James D. Graham, 2015 ME 35, 113 A.3d 1102. · cites it 4× “Graham contends that the court erred in analyzing the defense of mental abnormality, see 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2014), and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”
State of Maine v. Roxanne Jeskey, 2016 ME 134, 146 A.3d 127. · cites it 2× “See 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2015). The flaw in her reasoning is that “merely because there is evidence sufficient to generate.”
State of Maine v. Kandee A. Weyland, 2020 ME 129, 240 A.3d 841. · cites it 3× “” 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2018).6 “[W]hen evidence of an abnormal condition of the mind is presented, the court is called upon to determine whether .”
State v. Murphy, 496 A.2d 623 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “In drawing that distinction, it is important to bear in mind the difference between evidence of an abnormal state of mind introduced under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 38 (1983), for the purpose of raising a doubt about a defendant’s culpable state of mind, 3 and evidence of a mental disease…”
State v. Barrett, 577 A.2d 1167 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “such that it would rise to the level of an abnormal condition of mind and might create a defense” under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 38 (1983). Having excluded the evidence, the trial justice declined to instruct the jury with respect to section 38.”
State of Maine v. Andrew M. Sousa, 2019 ME 171, 222 A.3d 171. · cites it 2× “4 [¶5] To support his contention that he did not act with the culpable state of mind necessary to commit the crime of robbery, see 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2018) (stating that “[e]vidence of an abnormal condition of the mind may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a…”
State v. Proia, 2017 ME 169, 168 A.3d 798. · cites it 2× “Proia contends that the court erred in its application of the statutory principle of abnormal condition of the mind, see 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2016), and that the evidence was insufficient for the court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with the culpable states of mind…”
State v. Gurney, 2012 ME 14, 36 A.3d 893. “Gurney also suggests that the record contained sufficient evidence of an abnormal condition of mind to raise, pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2011), a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind.”
State of Maine v. Bartolo P. Ford, 2013 ME 96, 82 A.3d 75. “[¶ 4] At trial, Ford argued that he suffered from a mental abnormality as defined by 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2012). As evidence of his condition, he points to post-traumatic stress disorder, which he attributes to trauma suffered in the military during Operation Desert Storm, and…”
Ford v. State, 205 A.3d 896 (Me. 2019). “Ford argued that he suffered from a mental abnormality as defined by 17-A M.R.S. § 38 (2012). As evidence of his condition, he point[ed] to post-traumatic stress disorder, which he attribute[d] to trauma suffered in the military during Operation Desert Storm, and injuries…”
State v. Rega, 2005 ME 5, 863 A.2d 917. “” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 38 (1983). Rega’s argument that the abnormal condition of mind had not been raised at the time the State’s expert testified goes only to the kidnapping charge because the crime of gross sexual assault does not require a culpable state of mind.”
State v. Huff, 469 A.2d 1251 (Me. 1984). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 38 provides: “evidence of an abnormal condition of the mind may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the required culpable state of mind.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
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.