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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 805 (2026)

Aggravated criminal mischief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  A person is guilty of aggravated criminal mischief if that person:  
A. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly damages or destroys property of another in an amount exceeding $2,000 in value, having no reasonable ground to believe that the person has a right to do so;   [PL 2005, c. 660, §1 (AMD).]
B. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly damages or destroys property in an amount exceeding $2,000 in value, to enable any person to collect insurance proceeds for the loss caused;   [PL 2005, c. 660, §1 (AMD).]
C. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly damages, destroys or tampers with the property of a law enforcement agency, fire department or supplier of gas, electric, steam, water, transportation, sanitation or communication services to the public, having no reasonable ground to believe that the person has a right to do so, and thereby causes a substantial interruption or impairment of service rendered to the public;   [PL 2005, c. 660, §1 (AMD).]
D. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly damages, destroys or tampers with property of another and thereby recklessly endangers human life;   [PL 2005, c. 660, §1 (AMD).]
E. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly damages or destroys property of another by fire, having no reasonable ground to believe that the person has a right to do so, and the property damaged or destroyed is neither a dwelling place as defined in section 2, subsection 10 nor a structure as defined in section 2, subsection 24; or   [PL 2005, c. 660, §1 (AMD).]
F. Intentionally damages, destroys or tampers with the property of another, having no reasonable ground to believe that the person has a right to do so, for the purpose of causing substantial harm to the health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships of the person with the property interest or any other person.   [PL 2005, c. 660, §1 (NEW).]
[PL 2005, c. 660, §1 (AMD).]
1-A.  As used in this section, "property of another" has the same meaning as in section 352, subsection 4.  
[PL 1975, c. 740, §87 (NEW).]
1-B.  As used in this section, "value", if the property is destroyed, shall be determined pursuant to section 352, subsection 5. If the property is damaged, "value" shall be determined by the cost of repair unless that determination exceeds the determination of the value of the property had it been destroyed, in which case the property shall be deemed destroyed for purposes of this subsection. Amounts of value involved in mischiefs may be aggregated in the same manner as provided in section 352, subsection 5, paragraph E. Prosecution for an aggregated aggravated criminal mischief may be brought in any venue in which one of the criminal mischiefs which have been aggregated was committed.  
[PL 1977, c. 510, §67 (AMD).]
2.  Aggravated criminal mischief is a Class C crime.  
[PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §87 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 510, §67 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 224, §8 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 434, §1 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 625, §A20 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 482, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 660, §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 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). · cites it 5× “] After the jury's verdict, Ouellette filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal 3 and argued-for the first time-that the geotextile fabric and gravel had become "fixtures" of the real property of Pelletier Avenue and, because the State did not establish who owned Pelletier…”
United States v. Damon, 127 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “The state statute, defining aggravated criminal mischief under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805, is the starting point for our inquiry: 1.”
State of Maine v. Matthew R. Davis, 2018 ME 116 (Me. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 353(1)(B)(4) (2017) ; and one count of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A) (2017)-after a jury trial.”
State v. Holland, 2009 ME 72 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “[¶ 6] Holland was indicted by the York County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A) (2005), for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly damaging his neighbor’s car.”
State of Maine v. Michael J. Warner II, 2019 ME 140 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 401(1)(B)(5) (2018); six counts of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A), (2) (2018); three counts of theft by unauthorized 7 [¶12] About a year later, in September 2016, Warner, Shultz, and York filed motions to suppress certain evidence, including…”
State of Maine v. David Mullen, 2020 ME 56 (Me. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 211(1) (2018), and aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A) (2018), entered in the trial court (Cumberland County, Cole, C.”
State of Maine v. Bartolo P. Ford, 2013 ME 96 (Me. 2013). “§ 152-A(1)(F) (2012), two counts of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(C) (2012), two counts of reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon (Class C), 17-A M.”
Ford v. State, 205 A.3d 896 (Me. 2019). “1 Following a three-day jury trial in 2010, Ford was convicted on all counts and the trial court ( Marden, J.”
State of Maine v. Emanuel J. Sloboda, 2020 ME 103 (Me. 2020). “§ 703(1)(B) (2020) (setting out the elements of forgery, including that the defendant “causes another, by deception, to sign or execute a written instrument”); 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(C) (2020) (providing, as an element of aggravated criminal mischief, that the defendant’s act…”
State of Maine v. J.R., 2018 ME 117 (Me. 2018). “with aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A) (2017), alleging that on February 19, 2017, he "did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly damage or destroy windows, doors and surveillance cameras," causing in excess of $2,000 in damage at a public school.”
State v. Edwards, 681 A.2d 24 (Me. 1996). · cites it 8× “) following a jury-waived trial finding each of them guilty on one count of aggravated criminal mischief pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805(1)(A) (Supp.1994) (Class C), 1 and one count of aggravated criminal mischief pursuant to 17-A M.”
State v. Friel, 500 A.2d 631 (Me. 1985). “The Grand Jury for Androscoggin County returned a one-count indictment charging Friel and a codefendant with aggravated criminal mischief pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805. The indictment alleged that the defendants damaged some thirty churches and one town hall in Androscog-gin,…”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 805(1)(A) — 16 cases
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “] After the jury's verdict, Ouellette filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal 3 and argued-for the first time-that the geotextile fabric and gravel had become "fixtures" of the real property of Pelletier Avenue and, because the State did not establish who owned Pelletier…”
State of Maine v. Matthew R. Davis, 2018 ME 116 (Me. 2018). “§ 353(1)(B)(4) (2017) ; and one count of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A) (2017)-after a jury trial.”
State v. Holland, 2009 ME 72 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 6] Holland was indicted by the York County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A) (2005), for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly damaging his neighbor’s car.”
State of Maine v. Michael J. Warner II, 2019 ME 140 (Me. 2019). “§ 401(1)(B)(5) (2018); six counts of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A), (2) (2018); three counts of theft by unauthorized 7 [¶12] About a year later, in September 2016, Warner, Shultz, and York filed motions to suppress certain evidence, including…”
State of Maine v. David Mullen, 2020 ME 56 (Me. 2020). “§ 211(1) (2018), and aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(A) (2018), entered in the trial court (Cumberland County, Cole, C.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 805(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Damon, 127 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 1997). “The state statute, defining aggravated criminal mischief under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805, is the starting point for our inquiry: 1.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 805(1)(C) — 4 cases
State of Maine v. Bartolo P. Ford, 2013 ME 96 (Me. 2013). “§ 152-A(1)(F) (2012), two counts of aggravated criminal mischief (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(C) (2012), two counts of reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon (Class C), 17-A M.”
Ford v. State, 205 A.3d 896 (Me. 2019). “1 Following a three-day jury trial in 2010, Ford was convicted on all counts and the trial court ( Marden, J.”
State of Maine v. Emanuel J. Sloboda, 2020 ME 103 (Me. 2020). “§ 703(1)(B) (2020) (setting out the elements of forgery, including that the defendant “causes another, by deception, to sign or execute a written instrument”); 17-A M.R.S. § 805(1)(C) (2020) (providing, as an element of aggravated criminal mischief, that the defendant’s act…”
State v. Edwards, 681 A.2d 24 (Me. 1996). “) following a jury-waived trial finding each of them guilty on one count of aggravated criminal mischief pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805(1)(A) (Supp.1994) (Class C), 1 and one count of aggravated criminal mischief pursuant to 17-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 805(1)(D) — 3 cases
United States v. Damon, 127 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 1997). “The state statute, defining aggravated criminal mischief under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 805, is the starting point for our inquiry: 1.”
United States v. Cunningham, 597 F. Supp. 2d 155 (D. Me. 2009).
State v. Linscott, 402 A.2d 607 (Me. 1979).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 805(a)(0) — 1 case
State v. Seamans, 407 A.2d 13 (Me. 1979).
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.