Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases, 1976–2015 · leading case:
State v. Mishne, 427 A.2d 450 (Me. 1981).
State v. Mishne, 427 A.2d 450 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 8× “Mishne entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (17-A M.R.S.A. § 58) 1 and requested a bifurcated trial (17-A M.”
State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 4× “In the second half, the presiding justice sitting without a jury ruled that defendant had failed to sustain his burden of proving that he lacked criminal responsibility within the meaning of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1). After denial of his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed to…”
State v. Estes, 418 A.2d 1108 (Me. 1980).
· cites it 5× “The presiding Justice refused to give the requested instruction. He did, however, charge the jury both as to the insanity defense, 17-A M.”
State v. Burnham, 406 A.2d 889 (Me. 1979).
· cites it 7× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A). We conclude there is little difficulty in disposing of the first two issues adversely to appellant’s contention.”
State v. Ellingwood, 409 A.2d 641 (Me. 1979).
· cites it 4× “An accused is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he either lacked substantial capacity to conform his *643 conduct to the requirements of the law, or lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the…”
State of Maine v. James D. Graham, 2015 ME 35 (Me. 2015).
· cites it 2× “1980) (explaining the difference between the defense of mental abnormality, which was then codified at 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A), and the defense of insanity, then codified at 17-A M.”
State v. Sommer, 409 A.2d 666 (Me. 1979).
· cites it 4× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A) provides: In a prosecution for a crime which may be committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, where such culpable state of mind is a necessary element, the existence of a reasonable doubt as to such state of mind may be established by evidence of…”
State v. Heald, 443 A.2d 954 (Me. 1982).
· cites it 4× “The Defendant first asserts that the presiding justice erred in refusing to admit testimony by the Defendant to establish duress as a justification for leaving the institution and testimony by a doctor to establish reasonable doubt as to the requisite culpable state of mind,…”
State v. Bridges, 413 A.2d 937 (Me. 1980).
· cites it 3× “After finding defendant guilty the Superior Court justice, in making detailed findings, considered, as required by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A) and later elucidated by Burnham , the psychiatric and psychological testimony in determining whether there existed a reasonable doubt of the…”
State v. Gatcomb, 389 A.2d 22 (Me. 1978).
· cites it 3× “” Section 102 was repealed and replaced by the enactment of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58. 3 . “An accused is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he either lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the…”
State v. Smith, 574 P.2d 548 (Kan. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 58 (Supp. 1976).”
State v. Burnham, 427 A.2d 969 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Burnham’s defense was based upon an alleged reasonable doubt as to the requisite culpable state of mind, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A), and lack of criminal responsibility, 17-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 58(1) — 13 cases
State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58 (Me. 1981).
“In the second half, the presiding justice sitting without a jury ruled that defendant had failed to sustain his burden of proving that he lacked criminal responsibility within the meaning of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1). After denial of his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed to…”
State v. Ellingwood, 409 A.2d 641 (Me. 1979).
“An accused is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he either lacked substantial capacity to conform his *643 conduct to the requirements of the law, or lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the…”
State v. Estes, 418 A.2d 1108 (Me. 1980).
“The presiding Justice refused to give the requested instruction. He did, however, charge the jury both as to the insanity defense, 17-A M.”
State of Maine v. James D. Graham, 2015 ME 35 (Me. 2015).
“1980) (explaining the difference between the defense of mental abnormality, which was then codified at 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A), and the defense of insanity, then codified at 17-A M.”
State v. Mishne, 427 A.2d 450 (Me. 1981).
“Mishne entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (17-A M.R.S.A. § 58) 1 and requested a bifurcated trial (17-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 58(2) — 1 case
State v. Estes, 418 A.2d 1108 (Me. 1980).
“The presiding Justice refused to give the requested instruction. He did, however, charge the jury both as to the insanity defense, 17-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 58(3) — 6 cases
State v. Mishne, 427 A.2d 450 (Me. 1981).
“Mishne entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (17-A M.R.S.A. § 58) 1 and requested a bifurcated trial (17-A M.”
State v. Ellingwood, 409 A.2d 641 (Me. 1979).
“An accused is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he either lacked substantial capacity to conform his *643 conduct to the requirements of the law, or lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the…”
State v. Bridges, 413 A.2d 937 (Me. 1980).
“After finding defendant guilty the Superior Court justice, in making detailed findings, considered, as required by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58(1-A) and later elucidated by Burnham , the psychiatric and psychological testimony in determining whether there existed a reasonable doubt of the…”
State v. Gatcomb, 389 A.2d 22 (Me. 1978).
“” Section 102 was repealed and replaced by the enactment of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 58. 3 . “An accused is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he either lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the…”
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.