Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 4, § 9-A (2026)

Power to prescribe rules of evidence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Supreme Judicial Court shall have the power and authority to prescribe, repeal, add to, amend or modify rules of evidence with respect to any and all civil actions or other proceedings, and any and all proceedings in criminal cases before justices of the peace, District Courts, probate courts, Superior Courts and the Supreme Judicial Court. [PL 1987, c. 736, §2 (AMD).]

Such rules shall take effect on such date not less than 6 months after their promulgation as the Supreme Judicial Court may set. After their promulgation, the Supreme Judicial Court may repeal, amend, modify or add to such rules from time to time without a waiting period. After the effective date of said rules as promulgated or amended, all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect. Any statute incorporated specifically or in general terms in a rule shall remain in effect. [PL 1977, c. 564, §12 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1973, c. 675 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 564, §12 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 736, §2 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Hilton, 431 A.2d 1296 (Me. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Hilton, 431 A.2d 1296 (Me. 1981). “We have in place, under 4 M.R.S.A. § 9-A, a specific procedure by which the Supreme Judicial Court can promulgate new evidentiary rules with the benefit of mechanisms that assure an in-depth study of the need for such rules as well as of the policy considerations that bear upon…”

Citizens Commc'ns Co. v. Attorney Gen., 2007 ME 114 (Me. 2007). “Applicability of the Attorney-Client Privilege [¶ 15] Citizens next argues that because the attorney-client privilege grants a privileged status to communications between parties and their representatives when those communications concern a matter of common interest, its…”

Ziehm v. Ziehm, 433 A.2d 725 (Me. 1981). “Although any statute in conflict with the Maine Rules of Evidence (effective February 2, 1976) is “of no further force or effect,” 4 M.R.S.A. § 9-A, we find no conflict 2 that could vitiate the long-existing section 751, originally enacted in 1935.”

Ziehl Ex Rel. Ziehl v. Maine Nat'l Bank, 383 A.2d 1364 (Me. 1978). “and 4 M.R.S.A. § 9-A, the “dead man” statute was repealed).”

State v. Doucette, 544 A.2d 1290 (Me. 1988). “made by the State’s reply brief, that the Law "Court should amend the Maine Rules of Evidence to provide for the substantive admissibility of prior inconsistent statements not made under oath,” reveals a lack of comprehension of the difference between the Law Court’s limited…”

State of Maine v. Aaron C. Engroff, 2025 ME 83 (Me. 2025). · cites it 2× “art III, §§ 1-2; 4 M.R.S. § 9-A (2025). We decline to address this issue here but note our analysis of the question in State v.”

Poor v. Lindell (Me. Super. Ct 2023). · cites it 3× “4 M.R.S. § 9-A (“The Supreme Judicial Court shall have the power and authority to prescribe, repeal, add to, amend or modify rules of evidence.”

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.