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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8 (2026)

Statute of limitations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  It is a defense that prosecution was commenced after the expiration of the applicable period of limitations provided in this section, except that the following prosecutions may be commenced at any time:  
A. A prosecution for murder or criminal homicide in the first or 2nd degree; or   [PL 2019, c. 483, §1 (NEW); PL 2019, c. 483, §4 (AFF).]
B. If the victim had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the crime, a prosecution for incest; unlawful sexual contact; sexual abuse of a minor; rape or gross sexual assault, formerly denominated as gross sexual misconduct; unlawful sexual touching; or sexual exploitation of a minor.   [PL 2023, c. 475, §2 (AMD); PL 2023, c. 475, §3 (AFF).]
[PL 2023, c. 475, §2 (AMD); PL 2023, c. 475, §3 (AFF).]
2.  Except as provided in subsection 1 or 2‑A, a prosecution for a Class A, Class B or Class C crime must be commenced within 6 years after it is committed and a prosecution for a Class D or Class E crime must be commenced within 3 years after it is committed.  
A. [PL 2019, c. 483, §2 (RP); PL 2019, c. 483, §4 (AFF).]
B. [PL 2019, c. 483, §2 (RP); PL 2019, c. 483, §4 (AFF).]
[PL 2019, c. 483, §2 (RPR); PL 2019, c. 483, §4 (AFF).]
2-A.  A prosecution for a Class A, Class B or Class C crime involving unlawful sexual contact or gross sexual assault or a prosecution for a Class A or Class B crime involving aggravated sex trafficking must be commenced within 20 years after it is committed.  
This subsection does not apply to a Class D crime enhanced to a Class C crime pursuant to section 1604, subsection 5, paragraph B.  
[PL 2025, c. 479, §1 (AMD).]
3.  The periods of limitations shall not run:  
A. During any time when the accused is absent from the State, but in no event shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 5 years;   [PL 1987, c. 222, §3 (AMD).]
B. During any time when a prosecution against the accused for the same crime based on the same conduct is pending in this State; or   [PL 1987, c. 222, §3 (AMD).]
C. During any time when a prosecution against the accused for the corresponding juvenile crime based on the same conduct is pending in the Juvenile Court. For purposes of this section, pending includes any appeal period and, if an appeal is taken, any period pending its final disposition.   [PL 1987, c. 222, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 1987, c. 222, §3 (AMD).]
4.  If a timely complaint, information or indictment is dismissed for any error, defect, insufficiency or irregularity, a new prosecution for the same crime based on the same conduct may be commenced within 6 months after the dismissal, or during the next session of the grand jury, whichever occurs later, even though the periods of limitations have expired at the time of such dismissal or will expire within such period of time.  
[PL 1981, c. 317, §4 (AMD).]
5.  If the period of limitation has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for:  
A. Any crime based upon breach of fiduciary obligation, within one year after discovery of the crime by an aggrieved party or by a person who has a legal duty to represent an aggrieved party, and who is not a party to the crime, whichever occurs first;   [PL 2007, c. 173, §5 (AMD).]
B. Any crime based upon official misconduct by a public servant, at any time when such person is in public office or employment or within 2 years thereafter.   [PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]
C. This subsection shall in no event extend the limitation period otherwise applicable by more than 5 years.   [PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]
[PL 2007, c. 173, §5 (AMD).]
6.  For purposes of this section:  
A. A crime is committed when every element thereof has occurred, or if the crime consists of a continuing course of conduct, at the time when the course of conduct or the defendant's complicity therein is terminated; and   [PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]
B. A prosecution is commenced whenever one of the following occurs:  
(1) A criminal complaint is filed;  
(2) An indictment is returned; or  
(3) Following waiver of an indictment, an information is filed.   [PL 1987, c. 222, §4 (RPR).]
[PL 1987, c. 222, §4 (AMD).]
7.  The defense established by this section shall not bar a conviction of a crime included in the crime charged, notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired for the included crime, if as to the crime charged the period of limitation has not expired or there is no such period, and there is evidence which would sustain a conviction for the crime charged.  
[PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 510, §18 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 317, §4 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 470, §§A37-A38 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 222, §§3, 4 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 585, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 438, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 173, §5 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 392, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 113, Pt. C, §57 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 483, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 483, §4 (AFF). PL 2023, c. 475, §2 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 475, §3 (AFF). PL 2025, c. 479, §1 (AMD).
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 43 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). · cites it 7× “” 17-A M.R.S. § 8(1) (2016). “The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a ‘defense[ ]’ .”
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Article 576 (West 2003) (statute of limitations is tolled for an indictment for the same offense or for a lesser included offense based on the same facts); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 8(3)(B) (West 2003) (statute of limitations is tolled for a subsequent indictment charging…”
State v. Bailey, 2012 ME 55 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “One of the victims testified that the detective and the State "helped [her] to have th[e] courage to come forward." We will never know if these young victims would have come forward at some later point to reveal Bailey's behavior.”
Alexandre v. State, 927 A.2d 1155 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “The statute of limitations pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 8(2)(A) (2006) for Class A crimes is six years.”
State of Maine v. James A. Reynolds, 2018 ME 124 (Me. 2018). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(1), (2)(A) (Supp. 1997); 17-A M.”
State v. Thompson, 695 A.2d 1174 (Me. 1997). · cites it 5× “Because “[i]t is a defense that prosecution was commenced after the expiration of the applicable period of limitations,” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(1), the State is not required to negate the possibility that the offense was committed outside the statutory period “unless the existence of…”
State of Maine v. Troy D. Hastey, 2018 ME 147 (Me. 2018). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 8 (2017). The parties do not contest that, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, the factfinder must find the predicate elements of the Class B OUI offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Kotredes, 2003 ME 142 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(2) (Supp.2003). In this case, the limitations period ended on December 4, 2000, the date that the indictment was returned.”
State v. Miller, 191 A.3d 356 (Me. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 17-A M.R.S. § 8(2-A) (2017). 7 We have also held that place is not an essential element of a crime and serves only to fix the venue of the prosecution and provide evidence upon which jurors may evaluate credibility.”
State v. Borucki, 505 A.2d 89 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(1) (1983) provides that “[i]t is a defense that prosecution was commenced after the expiration of the applicable period of limitations provided in this section” (emphasis added).”
In Re Jones, 2009 VT 113 (Vt. 2009). “§ 54-193 , Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 8, Mass.”
Commonwealth v. Shelley, 80 N.E.3d 335 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(7) (on condition that "there is evidence which would sustain a conviction for the crime charged"); Utah Code Ann.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(1) — 14 cases
State v. Bailey, 2012 ME 55 (Me. 2012). “One of the victims testified that the detective and the State "helped [her] to have th[e] courage to come forward." We will never know if these young victims would have come forward at some later point to reveal Bailey's behavior.”
State of Maine v. James A. Reynolds, 2018 ME 124 (Me. 2018). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(1), (2)(A) (Supp. 1997); 17-A M.”
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 8(1) (2016). “The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a ‘defense[ ]’ .”
State of Maine v. Gregory S. Olah, 2018 ME 56 (Me. 2018).
State v. Standring, 960 A.2d 1210 (Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(1)(B) — 1 case
State of Maine v. Ernest Fyans, 2025 ME 78 (Me. 2025).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(2) — 2 cases
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 8(1) (2016). “The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a ‘defense[ ]’ .”
State v. Kotredes, 2003 ME 142 (Me. 2003). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(2) (Supp.2003). In this case, the limitations period ended on December 4, 2000, the date that the indictment was returned.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(2)(A) — 10 cases
State v. Thompson, 695 A.2d 1174 (Me. 1997). “Because “[i]t is a defense that prosecution was commenced after the expiration of the applicable period of limitations,” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(1), the State is not required to negate the possibility that the offense was committed outside the statutory period “unless the existence of…”
Alexandre v. State, 927 A.2d 1155 (Me. 2007). “The statute of limitations pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 8(2)(A) (2006) for Class A crimes is six years.”
State of Maine v. Roda O. Abdi State of Maine v. Ali-Nassir H. Ahmed, 2015 ME 23 (Me. 2015).
State v. Cloutier, 1997 ME 96 (Me. 1997).
State v. Perry, 552 A.2d 545 (Me. 1989).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(2)(B) — 4 cases
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 8(1) (2016). “The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a ‘defense[ ]’ .”
State of Maine v. Christal N. Gagnier, 2015 ME 115 (Me. 2015).
Mauriello v. State of Maine (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
State v. Thorne, 456 A.2d 12 (Me. 1983).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(3)(A) — 3 cases
Alexandre v. State, 927 A.2d 1155 (Me. 2007). “The statute of limitations pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 8(2)(A) (2006) for Class A crimes is six years.”
State of Maine v. Dale F. Thistle, 2024 ME 6 (Me. 2024).
State of Maine v. Dale F. Thistle, 2024 ME 6 (Me. 2024).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(3)(B) — 4 cases
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “Article 576 (West 2003) (statute of limitations is tolled for an indictment for the same offense or for a lesser included offense based on the same facts); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 8(3)(B) (West 2003) (statute of limitations is tolled for a subsequent indictment charging…”
State v. Padilla, 534 P.3d 223 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Padilla (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
Hernandez, Alexander (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(6) — 1 case
State v. Maynard, 926 A.2d 172 (Me. 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(6)(A) — 2 cases
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 8(1) (2016). “The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a ‘defense[ ]’ .”
State v. Nastvogel, 2002 ME 97 (Me. 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(6)(B) — 3 cases
State of Maine v. Nathan J. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75 (Me. 2017). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 8(1) (2016). “The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a ‘defense[ ]’ .”
State v. Thompson, 695 A.2d 1174 (Me. 1997). “Because “[i]t is a defense that prosecution was commenced after the expiration of the applicable period of limitations,” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(1), the State is not required to negate the possibility that the offense was committed outside the statutory period “unless the existence of…”
State v. Gammon, 519 A.2d 721 (Me. 1987).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(6)(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Maynard, 926 A.2d 172 (Me. 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(6)(B)(2) — 1 case
State of Maine v. Potter (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(7) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Shelley, 80 N.E.3d 335 (Mass. 2017). “See Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 8(7) (on condition that "there is evidence which would sustain a conviction for the crime charged"); Utah Code Ann.”
State v. Kotredes, 2003 ME 142 (Me. 2003). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(2) (Supp.2003). In this case, the limitations period ended on December 4, 2000, the date that the indictment was returned.”
State v. Borucki, 505 A.2d 89 (Me. 1986). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 8(1) (1983) provides that “[i]t is a defense that prosecution was commenced after the expiration of the applicable period of limitations provided in this section” (emphasis added).”
State v. N.S., 991 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
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.