Title 17-A, Title 17-A

1. Evidence of ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind. 2. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense only if the law provides that the state of mind established …

1. Except as provided in subsection 2, evidence of intoxication may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind. 2. When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if a person, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk o…

Evidence of an abnormal condition of the mind may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind. [PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).] An actor does not suffer from an abnormal condition of the mind based solely on the discovery of, knowledge about or …

1. A defendant is not criminally responsible by reason of insanity if, at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct. 2. As used in this section, "ment…

1. When the defendant enters a plea of not guilty together with a plea of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, the defendant shall also elect whether the trial must be in 2 stages as provided for in this section, or a unitary trial in which both the issues of guilt a…