Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 4, § 9 (2026)

Power to prescribe rules in criminal cases

✓ 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 pleading, practice and procedure with respect to any and all proceedings through final judgment, review and post-conviction remedy in criminal cases before justices of the peace, District Courts, Superior Courts and the Supreme Judicial Court. [PL 1987, c. 736, §1 (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.

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1987, c. 736, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1972–2005 · leading case: State v. Schofield, 2005 ME 82 (Me. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Schofield, 2005 ME 82 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “]" 4 M.R.S.A. § 9 (1989). [10] When assessing whether to impose the death penalty, juries consider a variety of factors, such as whether a murder was committed by a convict under sentence of imprisonment, whether the defendant was previously convicted of another murder or…”

State v. Bowman, 588 A.2d 728 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “Asserting that the Superior Court’s adoption of this procedure represented “an addition to, amendment to or modification of the existing Rules of Criminal Procedure,” defendant contends that such authority is vested exclusively with the Supreme Judicial Court, pursuant to 4…”

State v. DeLong, 456 A.2d 877 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “42, a rule promulgated pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 9 (1979), comes within that section.”

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…”

State v. Wells, 443 A.2d 60 (Me. 1982). “198, 199 (1926); 4 M.R.S.A. § 9. Our rules of criminal procedure were modeled upon the Federal Rules of criminal procedure.”

State v. Kelly, 376 A.2d 840 (Me. 1977). “” 4 M.R.S.A. § 9. We decide, therefore, that under § 2115-A the State has a right of interlocutory appeal which is independent of any proceedings by way of interlocutory “report.”

Eaton v. State, 302 A.2d 588 (Me. 1973). · cites it 2× “4 M.R.S.A. § 9 grants the Supreme Judicial Court “the power and authority to prescribe, repeal, add to, amend or modify rules of [criminal] pleading, practice and procedure with respect to any and all [criminal] proceedings through final judgment,” and this enabling statute…”

State v. Wedge, 322 A.2d 328 (Me. 1974). “226, § 1 (now 4 M.R.S.A. § 9), the Supreme Judicial Court was granted full rule making power in criminal cases.”

Dow v. State, 295 A.2d 436 (Me. 1972). “226, § 1 (now 4 M.R.S.A. § 9) gave the Supreme Judicial Court the power to “prescribe, repeal, add to, amend or modify rules of pleading, practice and procedure with respect to any and all proceedings through final judgment, review and post-conviction remedy in criminal cases .”

Town of Ogunquit v. Young, 544 A.2d 1288 (Me. 1988). “See 4 M.R.S.A. § 9 (1979) (authorizing promulgation of rules of criminal procedure by the Supreme Judicial Court and providing that “all laws in conflict [with those criminal rules] shall be of no further force or effect”).”

State v. Chasse, 797 A.2d 1262 (Me. 2002). “Pursuant to general rulemaking authority for procedures in criminal cases, 4 M.R.S.A. § 9 (1989), the Supreme Judicial Court promulgated Rule 21, which is entitled “Place of Trial.”

In re Thomas, 444 A.2d 385 (Me. 1982). “2d 353, 356 (1970); 4 M.R.S.A. § 9. See also State v. Wells, Me.”

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.