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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 52 (2026)

Ignorance and mistake

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 324, §16 (RP).
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 3 cases, 1979–1982 · leading case: State v. Kee, 398 A.2d 384 (Me. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kee, 398 A.2d 384 (Me. 1979). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 52. 3 . We thus have no occasion, here, to address the issue considered, and decided in the affirmative, by the New Hampshire Court in State v.”
State v. Farnsworth, 447 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1982). “Because there is no evidence to support Farnsworth’s contention that the police had given him permission to drive under the influence in order to perform his mission, it is unnecessary to consider on appeal whether 17-A M.”
State v. Mansir, 440 A.2d 6 (Me. 1982). “Under the accomplice formulations set forth in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 52(2)(c) and (3)(A), the defendant is legally accountable for the conduct (sale) of another when the defendant aided such other person in committing the crime (sale) with the intent of facilitating the commission of…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 52(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Mansir, 440 A.2d 6 (Me. 1982). “Under the accomplice formulations set forth in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 52(2)(c) and (3)(A), the defendant is legally accountable for the conduct (sale) of another when the defendant aided such other person in committing the crime (sale) with the intent of facilitating the commission of…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 52(4)(B) — 1 case
State v. Farnsworth, 447 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1982). “Because there is no evidence to support Farnsworth’s contention that the police had given him permission to drive under the influence in order to perform his mission, it is unnecessary to consider on appeal whether 17-A M.”
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.