Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 34
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 34, § 710 (2026)

Assaulting officers; escape; prosecution

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1965, c. 322, §1 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 391, §9 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 346, §2 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 625, §234 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 625, §289 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 647 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 492, §4 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 499, §59 (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 10 cases, 1972–1978 · leading case: State v. Dyer, 371 A.2d 1086 (Me. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Dyer, 371 A.2d 1086 (Me. 1977). · cites it 3× “As that case was postured, it was unnecessary to decide whether § 527 validly established an offense separate and distinct from “escape” as embodied in 34 M.R.S.A. § 710. 2 Any doubt on this issue was subjected to a penetrating analysis in the State v.”
State v. Holbrook, 318 A.2d 62 (Me. 1974). · cites it 3× “In each of the cases our decision is that the indictment sufficiently alleges, without duplicity, a violation of a valid and enforceable criminal statute, 34 M.R.S.A. § 710 (“escape from” the Maine State Prison).”
State v. Melvin, 390 A.2d 1024 (Me. 1978). “§ 2651) and assault on a prison officer (34 M.R.S.A. § 710). The indictments were consolidated for trial, and a jury found defendant guilty as charged.”
State v. Stewart, 330 A.2d 800 (Me. 1975). · cites it 3× “Not unexpectedly, escapes by persons not actually under physical restraint became more common than were escapes from inside the prison’s walls or when prisoners were closely guarded outside the walls.”
State v. Emery, 357 A.2d 878 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “The defendants were tried jointly on separate indictments for escape from the Maine State Prison (34 M.R.S.A. § 710) and a Knox County jury returned verdicts of guilty.”
State v. Campbell, 314 A.2d 398 (Me. 1974). “Merle Campbell has appealed from his conviction following a jury waived trial in which he was charged, by indictment of the Knox County grand jury, with a violation of 34 M.R.S.A. § 710 1 (Escape from the Maine State Prison).”
Burton Andrew Wark v. Allan L. Robbins, Warden, Maine State Prison, 458 F.2d 1295 (1st Cir. 1972). “§ 859, and that of escape from *1299 the State Prison described in 34 M.R.S.A. § 710, are not merely nominally — and penally — distinct, but that they respond to substantially different circumstances, We therefore affirm.”
State v. Chase, 330 A.2d 909 (Me. 1975). · cites it 3× “That it is necessary for the State to allege and prove that the confinement was lawful in order to convict for escape (34 M.R.S.A. § 710), 1 is now so well established in this State that citation of authority is unnecessary.”
State v. Damon, 317 A.2d 459 (Me. 1974). · cites it 3× “2d 62 (1974) the statute which opera-tively controls the instant indictment is 34 M.R.S.A. § 710 (and not 34 M.R.S.A. § 527).”
State v. Hunnewell, 334 A.2d 510 (Me. 1975). “This indictment — like that in Hol-brook — adequately alleges a violation of 34 M.R.S.A. § 710, Escape from Prison. The Defendant’s next claim of error causes us more concern.”
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.